Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
AAQ
sure we can make it more market friendly. I never said or menat to imply otherwise That in no way changes what I said. Yo umention “Making price transparent would be one. ” I agree it would help. but it wouldnt eliminate the issue. It is hard to imagine a patient in the throes of a heart attack looking up prices of local hospitals (one example I mentioned)
Furthermore, if prices are “too high” it would have little to no bearing on demand. Demand for cancer treatment is hardly driven by price (ifd at all) undermining the foundation of market economics. (the other example I mentioned) .
sure there are instances where free market might help. child birth is a great one. It is one of the most common reasons for admission to hospital, it is generally pretty straightforward and have 9 months or so to plan it . The problem is even there, your choice of hospital might be limited, not by your decision, but by your employers in a very bizzare setup that is almost unique to this country .
There is a great video on youtube done by vox where the fellow tries to find out how much the bill would be for a standard non-complicated birth, and he could not get an answer . (This was before Trumps’ price transperancy rule wnet into effect)
It’s not just medicaid. My office has an employee whose full time job is to try to get insurance companies to pay for tests I (and my oartners) think they need.
And forgive me you are on medicaid and you think democrats made it hard? You want the Republicans to decide the fate of your medicaid?
“Why don’t you call your DemonCrat friends to ,do it?!?”
I have.
My friend Obama said he would do it but the right went crazy so he backed downPersonal stories aren’t useful I have a closer friend who says he loves Canadaisn healthcare as does his wife. So there I win!
The awful UK story has nothing to do with government run health care as has been pointed out
Health
“What they do is – they give e/o insurance, but they Don’t cover All procedures, tests, imaging.””
no insurance covers “All procedures, tests, imaging.”” nor should they, I didnt think that point needed addressing
“I didn’t Rant against Medicare.
This is one thing that the DemonCrats did good.”So why can’t we just have supermedicare. It is the same as medciare but instead of covering those over 65 it covers everyone?
“I know what you’ll post next – just like Lying Fauci, I need a Double-Blind Study.”
No you are wrong (whats the word for a prediction that is wrong, or even if true kidding I know you were exaggerating its not a lie even though its false)
No need for double blind study. A simple poll showing that “In other Countries they hate Socialized Medicine.” Two countries please .I’m fuzzy on what Fauci has to do with this.
Lets try to keep name calling to a minimum.
You made a few interesting contentions. Back them up please specifically “In other Countries they hate Socialized Medicine.”Syag
I’m sorry about the difficulty your daughter went through.
Though a few points /questions1) Her difficulty highlights how bad private health insurance is, and is MORE of a reason to support a government run system (like Medicare or the VA). I am assuming The “provider” was a private company albeit one contracted by the government. (Please correct me if I’m wrong) In a Government run system this would not happen. Unless of course the Government shut down.
2) While her credit score going down is bad, many Americans go bankrupt from medical expensses. This is not a thing in most Western countries (Whether it should be or not is debatable, AND the main point of contention in my opinion, as pointed out before). Financial ruin due to medical costs is exactly the problem. Saying she still faces difficulty means we haven’t gone far enough in overhauling the system, it does not mean the old system was better
3) 14,000 out of pocket; does that include premiums and deductibles/copays? if so that is quite reasonable if it is for a family it is a bargain
Aaq
“Government is necessary when there is no effective market solution”
Very well put.
Basic laws of market economics don’t really apply to healthcare.
If say cancer treatment goes up in price its not like demand will go down.
It’s not like price hunting for a better deal for treatment of heart attack is possible.This is exactly why the government MUST step in.
How exactly should it be structured? Fair question. But that is fluff thst I find distracts from the main question. SHOULD the government be involvedThe bottom line is quite simple in my mind.
It is a question of the role of government
Do you think the government should take care of people by making sure they have and can afford healthcare then we need to figure out a,way to make it work.
The rest is just fluff.
Meaning let’s say the government COULD do it better. Let’s say I provide an example of a country that has universal Healthcare and has better health outcomes, say longer life expectancy.
Would that change your view?
Some argue no it isn’t the governments role, keep government limited and out if healthcare., and that’s fair but be clear on your view.
If it is the government s role. Then the question becomes how can we make it work. It is hard for me to believe that it can’t be done“Why do you think that the Libs are pushing it?”
To help people.
“I remember when we didn’t have any of those things.”
Me too, though to an extent. My entire life those over 65 and dialysis patients have had “universal health care” it worked quite well and most polls showed they were happy with their care.
“Do you think that it’s good?”
Yes“Well look at other Countries that have Socialized Medicine.
It used to be e/o would run to the US for Medical care & they still do.
This will change because of Socialized Medicine!”It doesn’t have to change.
Almost no body proposes a system where it would be illegal to charge for “more personalized ” (better?) Care. In sone countries that is the case, I don’t think that will happen here.“The Libs/DemonCrats are all for it.
You know why?”Yes
“In other Countries they hate Socialized Medicine.”
Can you provide a source?“The level of care ain’t Great!”
What benchmark are you using? For this claim??Also see orechdin’s Excellent comment
Go for it
“I already wrote where you were wrong more than once and you ignored it. ”
This is not factual.. I patiently explained why you in fact were incorrect.
“I’m not going to repeat the entire parshah again 50 times like you enjoy chewing over my words over and over and over again.”
Good. Please don’t. As you correctly note I have already chewed and digested your posts (the exact opposite of “ignored”)
I suggest for all who are “immensely interested” in who was right here to research the topic yourself.
I have, you can as well bit stick to factual sources
Anyway, in other news,…”
That is other news. Unrelated to our discussion.
” I can bring up many mistakes you made regarding the DNA and RNA process”
Would appreciate that if you have a moment. I don’t like making mistakes. And I always like learning new things. If I got something wrong. PLEASE point it out.
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying DNA produces RNA.”
I replied to this no fewer than 7 times already.
“The vaccine IS AFFECTING and MODIFYING the cell’s response and perhap’s the DNA’s as well”
No it isnt. The DNA’s response to what ?
“and you still keep on bringing up the same things again and again.”
right becasue you are repeating the same nonsense again and again.
Phil
“So for all you people bashing me for talking against vthe covid-19 accinations, ”
Most of your discussion here was with me. At no point did I bash you for talking against the vaccine.
I bashed you for making stuff up. Namely that “DNA produces RNA so the vaccine is affecting and modifying the DNA’s natural response.”
To tell you the truth the bashing didn’t even start there its ok to make a mistake, to misspeak. The bashing only started when your response to the multiple errors you made in that one sentence being pointed out, was to double down on your misinformed opinion.“I’m just curious, what in the world are they supposed to discuss? like, there are so many variables–how spreadable might it be, how dangerous, how many people might already be infected… are they going to make an algorithm with the different factors and decide based on that what measures to take?”
Exactly they discuss all those things.
They have had such discussions in the past as you mentioned, and as you would hope
Fire fighters run practice drills, doctors run mock “codes” of course each situation is different, that is MORE of a reason to prepare and prepare not less.
Excuse me, did I ask you to bring citations on whatever you wrote? ”
Please do. for any statement that you find surprising
“No, I did not and I am not going to do so for you. Look up the info yourself, it’s easy today, it’s all online.”
Lol, don’t you worry I didnt expect you to do so.
“There is absolutely an ongoing debate in science which came first DNA or RNA. “no there isnt. We are not discussing what came first in evolutionary theory. An attempt to now change the subject to that completely irrelevant one betrays either a complete lack of understanding of the discussion at hand (namely how the gene expresion and mRNA vaccine function) . OR a blatant dishonest attempt to obfuscate. I cant think of another connection that has to this topic.
“And search for the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology yourself”
found it! Its explained in detail in my post to you June 18, 2021 12:12 pm , and in most posts since. I know you only skim my posts. Don’t skim! read them. We can both learn new things
“and don’t lie about me making things up about DNA making RNA”
no it depends what you mean (as mentioned several times) .
“. It is you trying to wiggle out of what you said by asking me to bring citations. ”
no need. simple question: does a tikkun make a Torah?
“And you absolutely said said that after mRNA is produced it does not enter the nucleus and that is false because many types of mRNA sure do reenter the nucleus.”
Yes this is true I was wrong. while human mRNA does not enter the nucleus. Viral mRNA regularly does.
I will not bother providing citiation; this is the 21st century and you can look things up easily.”
Cracks me up again! (I skipped the next part since I replied above but this was too funny to ignore)“If Covid-19 affects or doesn’t affect the DNA is totally irrelevent to if the shot affects the DNA or not. However the answer is that, no covid-19 dos not affect the DNA, ”
Lol! So how and why would mRNA from a vaccine be different?
“You said that mRNAs do not return to the nucleus. That is compltely untrue. Many types of mRNA return to the nucleus as do proteins.”
Yes this wasnt true . I meant in normal human metabolism, but I overgeneralized and I was wrong. Thank you for pointing that out.
” So certainly you don’t know everything that is known about this subject so don’t jump to conclusions that just because you don’t know something someone else is making things up.”
certainly not! thats why I ask for citations. sources I love learning new things
“I’m not interested in going back and forth with you skewing my words.”
I’m not skewing anything . You simply do not know what you are talking about.
“Now I see that you are familiar with the subject but you don’t have the last word in this field”
both statments absolutly true.“. The fact is that there is a debate in the scientific world what comes first in this cycle of DNA splitting and RNA production”
Thee is no such debate.” and it is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that DNA makes RNA”
It depends what you mean, its like saying a Tikkun makes a sefer Torah, as mentioned.
“. In fact, THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY STATES THAT DNA MAKES RNA, AND RNA MAKES PROTEIN.”
I have never heard it posed that way. Though again, if that was your only mistake I would have let it go. While imprecise, and not technicly correct, it is fair to say it that way (as mentioned)
” You are oversimplifying the process”
the exact opposite saying “DNA makes RNA” oversimplifies the process, in fact a bunch of enzymes use DNA as a template to make RNA, this is till an oversimplification but more accurate than “DNA makes RNA”
” but I’m not going to argue further to try to prove my point regarding this topic. ”
Good, becasue it is a side point to the vaccine issue.“Whoever wants can do research on this topic, it is certainly not a topic I am interested in arguaing back about as such an argument would go on practically forever.”
Ditto
“You are totally wrong about natural mRNAs not entering the nucleus”
citation please. ( to be clear, we are talking once they exit)” (You really should familiarize yourself more before stating things as a fact particularly if you are going to argue about it in such a serious manner.)”
Always! I love familiarizing myself with things. Do you have a source please?
” Transcription of genes and the processing of various RNAs occurs in the nucleus,”
correct. As I said.
” whereas translation of proteins exclusively takes place on the ribosomes in the cytoplasm. Due to this physical separation, messenger RNAs (mRNAs) must be EXPORTED to the cytoplasm where they direct protein synthesis, whereas proteins participate in the nuclear activities are imported into the nucleus.”
YES! nailed it! EXACTLY as I explained.
“In addition, SOME TYPES OF RNAs REENTER to the nucleus after being exported to the cytoplasm… ”
citation please.
“And now to the last point I want to make; every aspect of the cell is controlled by the nucleus, that is a fact regardless if if you skirt around or ignore the issue.”
It isnt a fact. It is an oversimplification The nucleus controls gene expression. Once a gene is expressed the resulting actions are no longer controlled by the nucleus.
” I said that it MODIFIES the natural RESPONSE of the nucleus and maybe the DNA ”
Yes I know you said that. I dont know what that measn.
” the mRNA simply cannot produce anything on it’s own so it surely does affect the nucleus”
it absolutly can and does.I asked you earlier. Does Covid 19 (The virus) affect DNA?
“I only skimmed through your post, I did not read every line and perhaps I missed something ”
yes that is clear. You are repeating the things I told you as if they are your chidushim.
“but I will not argue point by point,”
” Now I may have made some grammatical mistakes or perhaps wrote a line in error as I often post from my phone and it’s hard to proofread before I press the submit button. ”
same!
“But overall, I stand by what I say.”
I know although it isnt fact based, that is all I’m pointing out. I don’t think I will convince you .
question (posed before, perhaps you missed it, since you only skimmed):
Does being infected w/ Covid 19 alter DNA?
“You really feel like peoples’ lives are your your hands by providing them with the “real info” ”
I dont get the connection.“so let me give you some advice that you should chill. ”
Why do you think I’m not chilled“Hashem is in control, ”
His seal is emes.
Please don’t make stuff upphil
Your second post to me went up the same time as my post.
Many of your mistakes are explained in my last post (which you hadn’t seen yet when your wrote this)
a few quick points
“… it is simply impossible that it doesn’t affect at least the response of the nucleus of the cell…”
I have no idea why you think it would affect it , let alone why it would be “impossible” otherwise. You dont provide a mechanism as to how. Just the statement that it must.
” The MSM, CDC, Google, etc. are only putting forth info that the mRNA “forces” the “cell” to produce spike proteins and they remain mum on how that process actually works within the cell”.
I explain it a bit more detailed, of course you can get even more detailed if you like. I’m not sure why you are acting like this information is unavailable. there are some nice videos wit hgreat graphics on Youtube from Harvard and other reputable groups
” And since we all know that RNA can only produce proteins through the DNA’s transmission process,”
We don’t all know that because it is absolutely not true. mRNA is well studied. In fact everytime you are infected w/ an RNA virus (Covid 19 being one) mRNA enters your cells. Does getting Covid 19 alter your DNA? why would the mRNA from vaccine be different?” Some viruses use mRNA to replicate we can reasonably assume that the mRNA needs the DNA as well to produce the spike protein.”
The first half of your statement is true and undermines the second.” We know for sure that the mRNA cannot not produce the spike protein on it’s own”
True in the same way that DNA cannot and does not produce RNA. DNA is a template for enzymes to produce RNA(translation). RNA is the template for Protein production (transcription).“, there is a process within the cell that that causes the mRNA to trigger the cell to produce the protein ”
Yes exactly!“and since, again, every cell is controlled by the nucleus, the process of the mRNA forcing the cell to produce the proteins MSUT involve the nucleus ”
Certainly not. mRNA is produced in the nucleus. Once you have the mRNA (whether it got there by viral infection or vaccination) there is no need for the nucleus nor its contents.” despite the fact (?… according to official channels) that it doesn’t enter it.”
If it doesnt enter, how does it change it?” That the vaccine not affecting the DNA is utter non-sense as the cell’s function is controlled by the nucleus”
This is something they teach in elementary school, it isnt completely true, in high school you learn about organelles and their own functions that don’t need a nucleus to instruct them.
” and the RNAs and proteins in cells work are a result of the DNA’s process of transmission”
I’m not familiar with “the process of transmission”
” so one must be missing some grey cells to think the mRNAs can simply force the cell to produce spike proteins without the involvement of the DNA and nucleus.”
So does getting infected by an mRNA virus , which of course also forces cells to produce spike proteins. Alter DNA?
” The mainstream explanation of how the shot works is that it supposed to “teach” your “cell” how to see the virus and it makes the cell produce spike proteins.”
exactly right
” But again, notice there is no mention of exactly HOW this process happens.”
again depedns where you look.” While the mRNA won’t change the makeup up the DNA”
correct“, it certainly affects its response to it”
Waaay to many “it”s in this sentence what affects whats response to what? ,
“one AMA survey is not something that is automatically a given fact.”
Certainly not. Especially when it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.
Same way you make a bunch of guesses as to how DNA translation occurs and then decide “This is highly improbable to me” Your opinions do not seem to be data/fact drivenWhich again, I’m not judging. I get the fear, I really do.
Just don’t spread misinformation.Your quote from the book is completely accurate.
Though as I said the DNA does not produce RNA, DNA is used as a template for RNA production. This is what I said (see the Sofer analogy) , and what your quote says.Again, if this was your only mistake, I would have let it go. I only mentioned it because EVERY part of your statement “DNA produces RNA so the vaccine is affecting and modifying the DNA’s natural response.” was incorrect, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of how the vaccine works specifically and biochemistry in general.
The rest of your first paragraph is complete nonsense (at least I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I am having trouble understanding your second paragraph as well. “So magically the shots’ mRNAs are supposedly not designed to enter the cells’ nuclei.”
no not “magically” mRNA doesnt enter a cell nucleus that isnt something that happens. There is no reason to think that THIS mRNa is special
“However the body’s natural RNA can only work together with DNA ”
No this is not quite right. Once RNA is produced it no longer “needs” DNA at all.“How can messenger RNAs affect a cell without help from the nucleus which controls ALL”
The mRNA is produced in the nucleus then exits, it doesn’t go back in.Here is a quick crash course. let me know where I lose you
1) Every human cell (ok almost), has DNA these are essentially instructions for all the body’s functions, production of proteins etc.
2) the first step in decoding these instructions is DNA transcription. During this process a bunch of enzymes open up the double stranded DNA and “transcribe” the DNA code into a slightly different RNA code. The product of this process is mRNA. This process occurs in the nucleus.
3) outside the nucleus, in the ribosome, this mRNA is used as instructions to build a protein, This process is known as transcription .
4) mRNA is then broken down, it does not reenter the nucleus. there would be no reason for it too, as far as I know humans don’t even have a mechanism to get it back in.With me so far? That is how proteins are produced in a nutshell ( I simplified it a bit and skipped a few steps such as mRNA processing that often occurs in nucleus, but that is the gist.)
Let me know if nay of the above is unclear.
So what does the mRNA vaccine do?
Essentially it skips DNA translation. Instead of mRNA being there as a result of DNA translation, the mRNA is directly injected. In the cytoplasm (not nucleus) the mRNA is transcribed as it normally is in step 3. the body then produces the “spike protein” a protein which does not exist in our genetic code (DNA). The body recognizes these spike proteins as foreign and produces antibodies against them
Again remember just like in step 3-4 above mRNA does not then enter the nucleus. There likely isnt even a (human) mechanism by which it couldphil
ubiquitin, “where is the source and where is the proof that 96% percent of doctors took the test? ”
It was an AMA survey“From CNN or the NYT perhaps?”
I’m sure they reported on it.“DNA 100% produces RNA.”
So not quite. DNA is used as a template for RNA, the DNA doesnt really produce the RNA, but as mentioned the difference here MAY be semantics (if the rest of your comments made sense). ITs kind of like saying a Tikkun produces a sefer Torah. Not really, the Sofer copies the Tikkun when he produces a Torah.” The shot 100% modifies the RNA response.”
So not at all. RNA response to what? The shot provides mRNA that humans otherwise wouldnt have . IT doesnt modify any response to anything“Absolutely no one disputes this”
I havent even heard anyone make your claim befrore (modifies RNA repsonse) I’m not sure I know what you mean, and pretty sure you dont know either.
” (unless one has no knowledge of how the shot works) ”
Forget how the shot works, you comments betray a lack of a highschool understanding of Biochemistry. I’m happy to explain if you are interested.” It’s on many of covid-19 shots manufacturers websites. ”
It isn’t.“The only point of contention is if the DNA response itself gets modified”
This isnt a point of contention at all. there is no human mechanism for RNA to affect DNA.” or only the RNAs response is modified….but nobody disputes that this shot modifies the RNAs response, that is how the shot works.”
No it isn’t . Like not even a little bit.
Oppose the vaccine all you want.
Just Dont make stuff up pleasePhilosopher
“I absolutely do not believe that 96% percent of doctors took the shot”I know you don’t. It doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative so you discard it.
“what part of what I said regarding DNA producing RNA, which the covid-19 shot modifies it’s response so that the shot affects and modifies the DNA’s natural response is not correct?”
Every part:
DNA doesn’t produce RNA (at least not directly)
The covid 19 shot doesn’t modify anything
And RNA doesn’t modify DNA.
So every part 9f what you said was wrong.And don’t worry I didn’t think you asked your doctor. I’ve had these discussions before its never based on the person’s doctor
philosopher
“Anyway, to each his own. ” Is not a magic sentiment that makes nonsense correct.
You spoke to your doctor and they advised you not to get it. Ok I understand that (although a recent survey said 96% of Doctors are vaccinated).
you heard from your wife’s friends’s Instagram post that it is very bad, and therfore you are scared. I get that too. (doesn’t make you right, obviously, but I get it)what puzzles me is the need to post nonsense, and nonsense that is easily debunked by a high school level understanding of cell biology like “DNA produces RNA so the vaccine is affecting and modifying the DNA’s natural response.” Why?
Why the need to back up your opinion with nonsense?“They pay doctors a bonus if they give 10 vaccines per child for 85%+ of their patients.”
Yes becasue it saves them money. vaccinating against polio is cheaper than paying for treatment of Polio and its sequalea same for Measles, Mumps even chicken Pox.
“On a macro scale, yes, maybe this covid vaccine works or at least doesn’t do harm. On an individual level however, there are significant risks that far outweigh the benefits IMHO”
It isnt clear to me how you made this distinction. The individual doesnt know which group he is in (ie those who Would get Covid and do poorly vs those who get covid and would do well or for that matter those who Get the vaccine and have minimal/no side effects vs those who have significant side effects) .
I don’t know about children , which is why I didnt reply to this thread .
I am trying to understand thewhat you view as the motivation behind pushing vaccines
You said doctors don’t do research they just do it because they are getting paid (not a verabtim quote) .Fine
so why are the insurance companies paying?
You give 2 (possible?) reasons :1) The vaccine works “on a macro scale” (or at least the insurance company thinks it does)
and
2) “they are likely subsidized by government to give out the vaccines”IF #1 Great! whats the problem.
if #2 that just shifts the question:why is the government paying to give out vaccines?
kollelman
“and paid by the insurance companies to dole out vaccines.”Why would the insurance companies pay for a vaccine that at best doesnt work and at worst causes people to get sicker (forcing them to pay more). Seems like a lose lose?
“There is No Roman Empire ”
Not to worry some goyish prophet predicted they were coming back. Sure I shouldn’t have believed him , and he’s been wrong over and over but hey you just never know
Hi Health, hope you’ve been well
“You didn’t quote the rest of my post -“he was looking at the bystanders to make sure he wasn’t attacked”.”
No I didn’t quote it because it was irrelevant. looking at bystanders is not an excuse to kill, not under the Torah, nor lehavdil the law
The question is How should the paserbys who stood by while Chauvin killled his unarmed, unconscious handcuffed victim, therby being oiver on literal Lo saamad al daam reeiecha, do teshuva?
Luckily I dont think this lav applies to Goyim so they have an excuse
“Why do you Libs keep attacking & Prosecuting Cops?!?”
Because no one is above the law.
lower
“also, its a child not a “kid”. a kid is a a young goat.”
While my elementary school teachers said the same thing, they were of course incorrect. Kid, like many words has several definitions. Feel free to check any dictionary.
if your looking for a unique name may I suggest MaherShalalchashBaz for a unique name (though meaning is a bit ominous)
n0mesorah
“‘The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ as unalienable rights. Those can never be taken away and are only in God’s hands. ”
Even those rights, were not actually viewed as inalienable. Slavery was of course practiced for nearly a century after those words were written. Sure philosophers can argue that slaves weren’t included in the “all men” . The same philosophers can argue that doing x , y z isnt included either.
More to my point though, as far as I’m aware the “the pursuit of happiness” is not a Torah ideal.
Sure we would support the GOVERNMENT’s guarantee of the the pursuit of happiness, but that doesnt make it G-d given.I think You are mixing apples and oranges. The two are completely unrelated.
The way you phrase the question doesn’t make sense “From a halakhic perspective, do you consider the Constitution’s and Declaration of Independence’s assertion that the “rights” it enumerates are inalienable because they exist in natural law and were established by G-d”
Halachically there is no right to free speech , quite the opposite certain types of speech are explicitly forbidden. Halacha certainly does not support free exercise of religion.
The US constitution is made by man. We (ie the authors/society) felt that we would be better guaranteeing free speech. So we did, there is no halachic support for free speech (the opposite is true). Furthermore IT is quite possible that one day it will be amended and Free speech will be limited, perhaps by a halachically inclined group (I’m sure some coffeeroom posters would support an “except lashon hara” clause to the right of free speech.
The idea of “inalienable rights” is a legal fiction. In many western countries there ARE limits on Free speech, hate speech is not protected. Are they violating these “inalienable rights”? Many first amendment purists would say yes they are. Those countries would argue no they are not. Can you prOVE that G-d gave us the right to say whatever we want. OF course not, in fact depending on which Releigion you practice I can prove (or at least argue) the opposite
I defer to the lawyers on this, But I think even in American law it i’snt really true that there are “inalienable rights” ie rights that can’t be taken away. I think if the constitution is amended they can be. Granted this is intentionally a complicated task. But I believe (correct me If I’m wrong )that theoretically the right to say free speech can be removed under the amendment process.
Yes
A proper kiddush should be too big to set up during mussaf, you want at least during laining, ideally they set up during shacharis
Oooor they are davening mussaf way too long.
either way switch
Commonsaychel
Your question there was ” is the lack of civility here to stay?”
based on your comments here, the answer is yes.
But fear not, you can be a change for the better. think of nicer ways to frame your comments. Though I suspect they are on the wrong website, since I doubt anyone who frequents this site can be accused of helping Hamas in any way shape or form.My sincerest apologies. I realize my last paragraph is poorly worded.
Allow me to rephrase
Your contention is “the worst social crime (=legal) in my book is when, in middle of an argument, you score a good point on someone and they don’t admit it.”
in other words You want/expect that your “good points” be acknowledged.Sure at the end of the OP you grant that there may be other reasons why a point is ignored, but clearly you don’t put much weight on those, as otherwise this entire thread is pointless.
with me so far?
So what I pointed out, is that it is quite possible, that that which you think is a “good point” that should/must be answered to avoid violating this most serious of social crimes, your opponent may think is silly/irrelevant
As you (later) acknowledged ““why should I answer your completely irrelevant question?” Same with the question that started your thread why should he answer your completely irrelevant question?
It doesn’t matter If you think your question is relevant (and thus requires a response) IF he doesn’t, then as you admit, no response is required.
Again, he may be wrong, it might be the best most relevant question in the world. IF he doesn’t think it is so, he won’t respond.Honestly I’m surprised this turned into such a contentious issue
“woah you don’t remember that you stated my question was non sensible”
Sure do, but that was never the point.
“I was completely aware. I was, for the most part not commenting on it”
Then you were ignoring my point.
“you’d rather I pay attention to all the reasons someone might not respond”
That and only that is and was my point.
“don’t accuse me of losing track of the conversation because I ignored your fiery speech”
No accusation you did, as I pointed out over and over, and as you now agree: “I was, for the most part not commenting on it,”
“I understand your frustration”
no frustration this is an amusing thread.I do not understand your frustration though. who cares If I think your question was silly? first of all you say I’m stupid you say I’m a liar and second I said multiple times, It could be a brilliant point, that went over my head.
You are getting so worked up at the thought of a stupid liar POSSIBLY not thinking your point is brilliant.
take it easy“another lie or memory loss?”
Lets back up. you got lost
You started a thread upset that A poster didnt reply to your question depriving you of your win.
I replied, that what you think was a good point the other gy may not have and even if you were deprived it isn’t worth getting excited over.
You then refenced the thread you meant.
I pointed out this was an excellent example. You think You had a great point. (and thus were deprived of your “win”) I replied this is an excellent example of What I referred to. It is possible the opponent DIDNT thin it was a good point (I sure didn’t, and don’t) and thus wasn’t worth answering. It was possible that he simply didn’t see it.
Regardless this thread was silly <- THIS was and is my point
Either because your premise isn’t true. Silence DOES not indicate a “loss” it could be they didn’t bother replying OR didn’t see itAND even if they did, don’t get excited.
So to sum up . I do not think your question there is relevant . But it doesn’t matter what I think, that isnt what this thread is about. I could even be wrong, and it is the best question ever asked. That is COMPLETLY beside my point.
If a person doesn’t think its a good question (even if they are wrong) they may not bother answering. I don’t now what AAQ thought maybe he thought (like I did and Do) that it was a stupid question. But again what I think doesn’t matter“why should I answer your completely irrelevant question?”
YES! nailed it. Even If I think it is the best question ever, even if it IS the best most relevant question ever. Your not answering doesn’t mean anything. you dont hink it is relvent, why should you answer. I couldn’t agree more. Very well put
“aaq didn’t write why he hadn’t responded to me”
You are right, I misread his reply.
“your theories were all that he saw them but still didn’t answer”
no my theories were that there are lots of possibilities
Mods
I can’ say I care for your selective editing, my edited line, was milder or at worst equal to what I have been called on this threadExactly why we have to start editing instead of hoping it would actually stop on it’s own. Expect it from the other’s posts here as well.
I haven’t lied once.
“you asserted that my post had no relevance”
Correct, though I said that as a possibility (I think so, I don’t know what aaq thought) . I’m following that thread so far I stand by my assertion. The discussion is about judging ….
s”econd and on was even if it was relevant maybe aaq had I different reason for not replying”
Yes and he said as such on that thread.
Lol. Should I post a new thread to brag about win?
” and even if not this thread is uncalled for blah blah blah.”
Yes it is weirdOh and I can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer my question.
edited
And that the right thing to do is to acknowledge that I made a good point
😥“you have no clue whether or not it’s relevant.”
Again, it doesnt matter. I may be wrong and you are really askign the best kasha ever posed on ywn.
I don;t know the answer nor do I care. It is completely irrelevant to my point.“what would be the most plausible explanation for such behavior?”
completely irrelevant to this (or that discussion) but just for fun:
Sefardim are often called Chacham, not so much Ashkenazim. Alternatively he forgot to cross reference his post with other posts he’s written, Veyesh omrim shnei AAQ’s haviNow your turn
What did I have for lunch yesterday?relax deep breathes. Your version of the conversation does not reflect reality
This is the actual one:
Participant: I suspect aaq didn’t answer my question because the answer will prove his hypocrisy.
Ubiq: not necessarily, there are lots of possibilities why someone wouldnt answer. perfect example. I think the question had no shaychus, I don’t know why he didnt answer
Participant well what do you think the answer is?
Ubiq : I have no idea. Yo uexpect me to know why a poster phrased things one way in one thread and’t“but perfect example of the one who knows the answer not answering but not because he’s escaping the truth.”
not quite. PErfect example OF there being many reasons why people don’t answer. You think you have the best zinger and you stumped him. I think it is a completely irreelvent question that doesnt deserve an answer (The thread is about welcoming people, you wrote a little tosfos asking a striha between word usage from a different (unrelated) post. I dont know why AAQ didnt answer, maybe he was stumped. Maybe he ddnt see it maybe he too thoight it was irrelvent to the thread)
My point is there are many reasons why people dont reply. This is a perfect example. Yo uthink its the best question, I think it is silly, irrelevant and distracting.
Note: Even If I’m wrong and it is a Great, relevant question It STILL doesn’t change my point, as my point is there are lots of reasons why people dont answer (Syag helpfully provided a few more excellent examples in this very thread)
That was the first hlf of my point. The Second half is even if you DID stump him, starting a new thread to gloat about it seems a bit petty. just pat yourself on the shoulder you are very very smart, print out the thread post in your fridgeLol I provide a long post, that you skip, and somehow I’m the one confused by long posts?
you’re funny.
But no youre not geoingt to get me to call you names. I am a patient explainer so I will helpI’ll keep this shorter, with a summary at the end. you should be fine.
“you could have simply said that my question didn’t prove anything.”
That is EXACTLY what I said.I don’t know why he didn’t answer as I said “I don’t know what he thinks”
I was responding that the fact that someone doesn’t answer doesnt mean you got them.
It could be They didn’t think it was a good or relevant point worthy of response (Like I think regarding your irrelevant comment there)
It could be they didn’t see it (Like syag claims she didnt in my post linked above)
It could be they lost interest, don’t want to get bogged down in a silly conversation (Like syag in this post)
Of course it could be that you “got them ” . Though even in that case, starting a new thread to gloat seems petty, You aren’t owed anything, ok you got him, you win mazel tov, it isnt that great a feat, do you plan to put it on your resume, “Was able to defeat a YWN poster”so to keep things concise:
your premise (that silence = defeat) isn’t true , and if it was it isn’t worth getting worked up about.with me?
Lol yes!
EXACTLY” I never saw your question.”
EXACTLY
See it does not necessarily mean “not answering a very simple question with nothing to lose when the answer has a 99.9% chance of showing the preacher’s hypocrisy is as clear an indication as they get that he’s fluff of baloney”sometimes, the person simply didn’t see it
other times, the person may have just lost interest
other times they dont want an endless back and forth that goes no where.“And don’t be insulted,”
I’m not, don’t worry not at all.
Im disappointed, since you changed too, but dont even see it.BTW how do you get replies up so quick, areyo connected to mods?
I reload the paage a few times, my comment isnt there than I repload again a minute later and mine and your follow up are thereSyag
who is that response to?
I assume not me,
since :
a. You ignore my replies (exhibit a above, dont worry I’m fine with it, as you aren’t very honest and what makes it worse is you have a better than thou attitude, at least I admit I’m snarky look at your comment. uch)
b. your comment in no way relates to me. Put in my place? in this thread? How ? by whom?
and c. “Moving on”? me ? that has never been my goalbut I cant figure out who else it is to
Participant
“which? the question for aaq? ”
Yes
“how can a question not make sense? the one I made here?”
no the one there
” how can it possibly not have shaychus.”
It isnt relevent to the discussion there. The discussion there was about welcoming strangers, Calling a sefardic Rabbi chacham or Rav has no relevance to that topic“AAQ doesn’t owe you anything”
uh…duh? there’s a reason this discussion is not taking place in b”d.You seem to think he “owes” you a reply.
In fact yo ustarted a new thread to bully him into replying“not every comment deserves a response”
thanks so much for repeating what I already said.”you are most welcome. thus your entire thread is pointless.
“having said that, if pointing out someone violates their own preaching is considered silly by aaq then I can’t fathom why”
whut?
“he frequents the coffee room. probably about half the comments boil down to something like this.”
Yep it happens big deal. Don;t let it get you down.“if that makes you think you got him”
not answering a very simple question with nothing to lose when the answer has a 99.9% chance of showing the preacher’s hypocrisy is as clear an indication as they get that he’s fluff of baloney.”Fantastic! You win!
And syag agrees, so you MUST be right*“you certainly didn’t owe me any response so what prompted you to flaunt your stupidity yet again?”
Pure enjoyment! Nothing more nothing less. I dont think I will convince you. I dont think you will acknowledge that you are contradicting your own premise (You said both not every comment deserves a response, AND “silence shows he is full of baloney”, you cant have it both ways
Actually you can, you can have whatever you want. )* I hardly engage with Syag especialy on politics for this very reason
see here
for my question “In this context what’s the difference between a book and a memoir? ”
No answer to the question
does that mean I “got her”? I sure think so. do I think it shows her hypocrisy? Absolutely.Do I get all worked up that it is “the worst social crime” and start a thread about it?
No, I showed she was wrong, big deal move on. She doesn’t have to say “Ok you were right”(Granted the comparisons are not EXACTLY the same, since my question there was directly related to the conversation at hand, yours was not)
Participant
Perfect example. You think you “scored a good point”
I think your comment makes absolutely no sense and has no shaychus to the topic at hand.
I don’t know what he thinksAAQ doesn’t owe you anything not every silly comment deserves a response. If he wants to engage in a silly conversation he absolutely can, if he doesn’t he doesn’t have to. If that makes you think you Got him. Gezunterheit pat yourself on your back.
I made a comment too, Am I “owed” a response? Of course not.
Although you are right, your better off not letting it bother you
nobody is hear to be convinced. You’ll feel better if you stop trying to convince anybody. stay here for your own sake , to flesh out your own ideas, to refine them rethink your previously held notions. Don’t worry about other people.
I assure You for every good point you think you “scored” that wasn’t acknowledged, there was one an “opponent” think was scored against you that wasn’t acknowledged.
There are posters who can see black and say white, I’ve hada poster literally redefine a word , saying he wasnt using a dictionary definition but some other “Definition” he dug up from the depths of the internet, misconstrued, cut half off of and said that was the defitnion he was using.
Thats the way it is, don’t let it bother you, Don;t view it as a “debate”
Health
Your post is anti Torah
As you say “Even though he should have removed his arm at the time of Floyd’s unconsciousness”
He didn’t he continued to kill his restrained unconscious victim.Why don’t you follow the Torah? You should call for Chauvin’s death
Unquestionably no
One of the defining characteristics of our people is Rachamanim and Gomlei Chasadim. When new frum practicing people move to your neighborhood it is wholly appropriate to welcome them, and goes against everything Jewsih to shun them since “wed don’t know you”
This story is very very rare, (and frankly missing many details) .
the “serious” breaches of halacha are minor and easily remedied . Big deal people who used him for pidyon haben should do another one, How many mezuzas did this guty write alread replace them (and at any rate unlike welcoming ot a community when purchasing STAM it IS appropriate to look into the sofer). Your worried about his dead wife?
Big deal, worry far more about pushing away people , that is a far greater problem.It isnt even close
Excellent thread
What emerges from all this is that according to the Troah the only Goy mentioned in this thread that deserves the death penalty is Chauvin.
He is the onyl one who killed anybody and no he was not authorized to do so, Yes Floyd resisted earlier but in the United States their is no blanket allowance for cops to kill people who resisted earlier (does nay country have such a policy?). If he accidently died while be subdued would be one thing. That is NOT what happened.
AFTER Floyd was subdued and cuffed Chauvin held him there (to ensure his demise? I’m not sure why else) And just to be sure he was dead he continued to hold him there AFTER Floyd was unconscious. It cannot be argued that Floyd was still resisting then.So to sum up Chauvin killed an unconscious Floyd. He was not authorized to do so.
According to the Torah Chauvin should be killed
The more relevant rodef in this case is Chauvin
Had a bystander killed Chauvin DURING his act of murder, while Chauvin was murdering his restrained, harmless (unconscious!) victim.
Chauvin’s killer would be fully justified, and no less a hero than Nicholas Reardon who saved another victim.Note: Although at the time Chauvin was a rodef, he is no longer one, killing him today would not be justified, don’t make the same mistake the OP made .
lakewhut
do you have a source for your contention that a rodef can be killed for the attempt 13 years alaet (or even 13 seconds after he is done “pursuing”) ?
“Yes she was pregnant”
she wasn’t . Yes there are articles that say that, but no contemporaneous ones do including the detailed police account, but regardless as I and you said pointing a gun at a woman is bad whther or not she was pregnant.
However that has exactly zero bearing on Chauvin’s murder of him 13 years later.
unless you can provide a source for this rule of “once a rodef always a rodef”
“Btw, I’m not him.”
Yes I know, but you quote him and give his words credence (“I believe it’s possible,”)
“You can post to him on his You Tube channel.”
I don’t have a question for him. I get it he can make stuff up, if wrong, people still believe him , and if he guesses right, people are impressed. Its a win win. People get a kick out of tricking gullible people.
I understand him completely.you confuse me
how don’t you see it .You say youre not sure when the deadline ends.
how is this possible. OVer a month ago (March 18) you quoted him as saying “within a month, Trump will be President again.”
Regardless when that month started, at thsi point it is over (since you said it over a month ago)
You want to extend his time “The same guy said it will be up in 15 days a few days ago.” fine. I’ll see you back here May 7 that is 15 days from now (Lets give the guy some wiggle room)At any rate though. This prophet who you give credence to.
Is he a deaf, a kid or crazy?You can kill a rodef 13 years after the event?
(and she wasn’t pregnant , doesn’t really change much but stick to facts)
Health
“The time is Not up yet!”
when is it up?
On 3/18/21 you said “One Goyishe Prophet said that within a month, Trump will be President again.
I believe it’s possible, but not probable.”When did that month (or 15 days start) ?