Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Where is it permitted in Torah sources please?”
Sure
Mishna Ohalos 7:7
Rambam rotzeiach 1:9
tzitz Eliezer 9:51, 13:102, 14:109
yaavetz 43“Anyone who supports abortion except in cases of danger to someone’s life.
Duh!”I don’t follow. In what language does “infanticide” include abortion?
“Have you been smoking legal damnocrat weed lately?”
I don’t know what that means“You feel better if we call it fetalcide?”
no I dont feel better.
He said “infanticide” I;m not such a stickler for word purity, but a semblance of meaning needs to be attached. does infanticide include abortion? since when? And if not why say something it isnt
Does it make sense to say Republicans support infanticide since they oppose gun restrictions? Granted it is closer to reality than saying Democrats suport infanticide, bu t it is still a stretch .“Once it’s a viable fetus forty days after conception, by all accounts, it’s murder to ”terminate ”
And you know that.”
Um no I don’t certainly not by “all accounts” (R’ Moshe being a notable exception) and also not in practice in the cases I’m familiar withI replied earlier but ddint make it past the censors
Ill split my reply and reword it:“How does the Chafetz Chaim know that מוציא שם רע is worse than being מאנס a woman (shockingly not agreeing with ubiq’s moral scale, )?
By seeing what the punishment is!!
(again arguing on ubiq )”thats not arguing. As I said from the get go, that is generally how severity is determined
and Just so I have your view correctly
If Gimpel is spreading rumors about a person
You would rightly by horrified saying “how can you say that its motzei shem ra”
If he then says “no its not motzei shem ra I was meanes her ” Is he now less of a rasha?“How does the Chafetz Chaim know that מוציא שם רע is worse than being מאנס a woman (shockingly not agreeing with ubiq’s moral scale, )?
By seeing what the punishment is!!”Thats not an argument on ubiq, As I said from the onset that is generally how severity is determined, but as we have demonstarted there are no fewer than 25 exceptions .
At any rate, halacha lemasseh
A person will either be meanes someone or motzi shem ra. you would tell him better to be meanes?And to make it stranger: suppose a person is “spreading rumors” saying plonis is no longer a besula.
your reaction would be “chas veshalom how can you be motzi shem ra like that”
He replies “no no its true I was meanes her”
while still a rasha, You are maintaining that he is now better than you first thought because he is no longer being motzei shem ra, is this correct?RM
“The democratic party.”
That’s horrible! the whole party ? certain members ? which ones? I generally consider my self somewhat versed in politics, can you provide a source for this horrible accusation?“Ubiq I think you side stepped his point.”
I did not .
your lomdishe chiluk is irelevent the bottom line is DY said it best on another thread
“Trump is very far from a bastion of morality…. Trump proudly admitted to arayos which are included in the sheva mitzvos b’nei Noach. In many ways, he’s a big menuval.
I may very well end up voting for him because he will (again) be the lesser of two evils, but please, let’s not pretend there’s such a clear and obvious moral superiority here.”
“I can’t support someone who makes the worst activities into a ”positive lifestyle ””
So don’t .Though who supports “infanticide” ?
“Reb Eliezer, I’m really shocked that you support abortion being legal.”
Your’e shocked that a yid takes the Torah’s view ?
LF
” He doesn’t go around throwing, spewing and broadcasting his lifestyle upon us”
Lol he does. He has been in the limelight for decades. he epitomizes ALL the negative qualities you claim to, that is his claim to fme and how he got elected .
“We don’t curse or bad-mouth him.”
So don’t” they’re more aligned with an upright, moral standard of lifestyle”
That’s your opinion, and I get that and not going to dispute that.BUT, take a step back and realize that it is not absolute. you say “have to stand up for what’s moral, upright, upstanding.” and I agree, but regardless who you vote for you have to compromise on your ideals (meaning by way of supportting the lesser of two evils). The only question is which is the lesser,. but it is silly to say if you vote democrat then you automatically support xyz but I can support Trump while still being say pro-truth.
Bottom line:
Supporting a candidate (or party) does NOT mean you automatically endorse/support every position that party or individual takes.LF
you had me with your lofty speech until “President Trump, with all his … notwithstanding”
you cannot claim to support that which is “stand up for what’s moral, upright, upstanding.” and then support Trump in the same post.
If you say Trump is the better candidate so we have to disregard the fact that he is the polar opposite of all that is “moral, upright, upstanding.” and vote for him any way I hear that .
But you cannot then claim to support that which is moral upright and upstanding. you support the candidate that you feel is MORE in line with (your view) of what is moral upright and upstanding, and he rest of us will do the same
” One more justice and abortion will be illegal on the federal level once again”
there is about a zero percent chance of that happening
At worst they will rule that there is no constitutional “right to abortion” in which case it would be up to the states. Even this is unlikely, but at least plausibleKy
Not at all.Let’s take this slow.
The premise is: trump is a mean spirited bully.
Nobody here is disputing that point.Some, like you , say I don’t care.
Others like Joseph say I wish the republicans put up someone better.Others say that’s what makes him a good candidate we need a bully to win.
For that last group to say oh but I wish he had better manners. Doesn’t make sense to me
KY
sorry to burst your bubble but you aren’t saying any chidushim, all that has been said over and over for the past 3 years and 4 months or so
you say “Do they care about his personal flaws? Do they even see them???”
Thus my question “If you don’t like Trump’s character, are you disappointed that the party didn’t’ nominate someone else.” doesnt apply to you . You don’t even see his character flaws . So my question doesn’t start .I see reason to support Trump, I for one support him for his support for Israel (the comment “Ever wonder if these policies of his are politically motivated to buy your votes and curry favor with organisations like AIPAC?” is silly, of course it is, but so what?) however I think his negatives far far far outweigh his positives. A debate that frankly doesn’t really interest me . Because I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.
Some might support him for his bullying, they like bullies or his denigrating of those he disagrees with , or any number of reasons or ” he says things like they are” (a strange comment regarding a President who brings lying to whole new levels #alternativefacts)I get all that. That was never my question, why would anyone support Trump.
However there are people, who say they DON’t like those character traits of his (again not you) to THEM I ask are you dissapointed that someone else wasn’t nominated .
Some Like joseph, said yes they would have preferred Pence but are stuck with Trump so will vote for him over any Democrat. Again, I get that. (though it says something about the Republican party if this is their position )Others say well we need Trump because a “nice” Republican wouldn’t win . So these people are a bit confused. Becasue they DO like Trumps’s “despicable mannerism” and they specificly want that in their candidate. Yet claim they are voting in spite of it , this is the stance that puzzles me
My question there was (and I’m paraphrasing) :
If you don’t like Trump’s character, are you disappointed that the party didnt’ nominate someone else.
the answers I got were interesting. I will keep that there since I don’t want ot hijack your thread.
But my question was not “why do you support Trump”“So to answer ubiq’s question”
What question?
I know why people support him. That was not my question at allCA
“I hope that clears it up”
It is quite clear, I never had any question about you position. I completely understand
Ca
“The gist of it is that “nice” Republicans wouldn’t stand a chance against the democrat attempts to paint him (or her) as a bigot, racist, wants to kill granny,”
Yep I got it . option b. Thats fine I get that
Syag
“Don’t take the liberty of replacing *stuck with” with “like”.”
in this context they are the same.Put another way if it where up to you (and wouldnt create a civil war in the Republican party) say Trump called you and said Hey Syag/CA/Joseph/ KY Ive had enough of this, I’m dropping out and throwing my full support behind Pence, he of course in on board as is the entire Republican leadership , I just want your take . ie you get Trump’s (professed current) positions without the “despicable mannerisms” would you encourage him to do that or say no we need you to run.
My sense from all your responses (correct me if I’m wrong) is that you would NOT be happy with a candidate who was Trump without the “despicable mannerisms”
If you (ie the party, or you personally in a magical world where you decided this) had to choose between Trump, and say Pence .you would choose Trump over Pence because of the “despicable mannerisms”
this is closer to “like” than “stuck with” in my book“If you write in a candidate, you’re voting for him to be an ELECTOR; you’re not voting for him to be President”
It is of course more complicated than that. while it varies state to state .
some states require write in candidate to file paper work in which case of course the votes would count. Other states don’e even require that while some don’t allow write ins . electors can be chosen after the election so if Pence wins the popular vote in VT, NH, OR, WY , IA, Pa, NJ, RI DC, MS, AL , Additionally 32 other states (all but NV SD, NM, AR SC OK, La, HI) allow write ins if they preregister (which he can still do) He can handily win 490 to 48.“Because that candidate you’re describing isn’t on the general election ballot for President, as a viable major party candidate”
youre dodging m yquestion.
Yes I said that. Are yo usaddened by that do you wish the Republican party nominated such a candidate
CA
“Mind you, even though I’m too young to remember Reagan, I’ve heard that he had the same brashness to stand up to the democrats”He didint, though like Trump he had signs of dementia towards the end of his presidency (not as early as Trump)
“Most of the gop are a bunch of sissies”
right I hear you loud and clear. So you (agian not you personally) like Trump BECASUE of these attributesInterjection
“I resent the implication that Republicans ”You can resent the implication form today until tomorrow, several posters confirmed that they (the party) like Trump precisely because of his rudeness
” I don’t believe there’s the ability for a write-in candidate in presidential elections, ”
Of course there is
“But at the end of the day I think it is more important to nominate an acceptable Republican who will win the general election rather than a more ideal candidate who will lose the general election.”
sure I get that.
But that is part of my question
why not nominate a republican who will win a general election (and lacks Trump’s “despicable mannerisms.”)
The option I can think of are
a. There is no such Republican
b. You don’t really mind his despicable mannerisms, and perhaps even like them (perhaps this is what will win the election as some other posters said/insinuated)KY
“Even if you found me someone with the ideas I wanted to see implemented in how to run this country, if he is personally a nice guy, the libs will guilt him into abandoning all of them.”
Yes I got it “Till big potty mouth Donald Trump came along. Yes that awful brash couldn’t care less about being nice and proper, two year old insulting personality? That’s exactly what is needed”
so you Don’t care that he is despicable, in fact you like him BECAUSE of that (partly)
Thus my question wasn’t geared to you. I am not at all confused by that position.Joseph
“Ubiq: Pence isn’t a candidate for President; so he can’t be voted for President.”first of all he can. But my point is are you sad that the party didnt dump Trump. Assuming you don;’t like Trump’s “despicable mannerisms.” ddo you wish the party dumped Trump for Pence , he is Trump’s (current, professed) beleifs without the despicable mannerism.
DY
“The Republicans tried that. His name was Mitt Romney. That didn’t work.”so thats kind of my point.
Pence presumably has all the same positions as Trump claims to have. On immigration, Israel, etc. Many claim that they like Trump “DESPITE his despicable mannerisms.” So why settle ? nominate Pence* ! He is Trump without the despicable mannerisms .
I suspect that you* actually like Trump because of his mannerisms or to put it more delicatly , “gets the job done”
Romney just couldn’t win over the country just with ideas alone. But when combined with boorishness and imbecilic comments . THAT makes for a wining combination. THAT makes or a nominee you* can support* I dont mean you personally I mean you as a party
“Read the rest of my posts’
(sure though those went up after mine)
” Show me one without his faults and I’ll vote for that guy over him”
Easy Pence. My question isnt geared to you personally. It is geared to the collective you ie republicans
(I didnt understand the rest of that post, it seems like some sort of haiku)“Others may have the same position but only he has the ability to get the job done”
so are you nervous for 2024?KY
“I could not care less…” My question wasn’t geared to those wh o have that view. I get people who just don’t care. There are all sorts of things that some make a big deal about that others wouldnt care.
Perhaps I misunderstood, the specific quote I replied to. I understood it to mean that they don’t like that side of him, but overall he is better than any Democrat. Ie not that they “don’t care” about that side, they do but embassy or but socialism or whatever.
So this is the position that confuses me a bit, so why not get a different Republican?
“Most people here [seemingly] who support trump do so DESPITE his despicable mannerisms. [myself included]. ”
That’s an oft repeated position but I don’t fully understand. Is there no republican who has his good qualities but not his despicable mannerisms?
You hoped he’d improve he hasn’t, he still has “despicable mannerisms” so forget him. Surely Pence has the same good views but seems like I decent guy.
Where you disappointed that Pence (for example) didn’t run as a primary Challenger?
Syag
“1. given that some have said they need trump out so he doesn’t get reelected, how is that not election interference?”
I’m not sure what you mean. Every time a person campaigns or endorses a candidate or him/herself its election interference. Election interference isn’t wrong. The idea being of course, that you are acting in the best interest of the country. you think the country is better off with say Trump, so you convince me and whoever else will listen to vote. for Trump. that is fine.
The problem is foreign election interference. A Foreign country (or so the argument goes) does NOT have our best interests in mind, they have theirs. thus a foreign country meddling in our election is to their benefit that is why it is wrong. IF Trump hired a private eye to investigate a rival that would be fine, using a foreign government is what is questionable
furthermore the problem here is abuse of power. Even hiring a private eye would be wrong if he paid him with government funds, or did him a favor as President. He would have to pay him with his own (or campaign) money. Using his office to benefit himself is the LITERAL definition of abuse of power. His job is to enforce congresses laws. when congress authorizes money to a foreign country his job is to deliver it. It is wrong for him to abuse his power and personally gain from it whether by having them interfere in an election or stop blocking his driveway.2. I don’t really understand your second question either. Are you asking, if Trump is so terrible How can he have been elected by so many people?
Are you asking how can he be so obviously guilty yet they acquitted him ?Take Susan Collins. she said he is guilty but thinks he learned his lesson and wont do it again (that is almost a verbatim quote) At its face this is absurd. He STILL insists he didn’t do anything wrong “The phone call was perfect” how could he have learned his lesson (even assuming he is capable of learning lessons) ? she isnt a stupid person, she knows he didn’t learn anything. so why did she acquit? not becasue he didn’t do what is alleged (she said he did) not because he learnt his lesson (he said he didn’t) it must be some other reason….
“What Trump did was perfectly appropriate.”
that is certainly debatable, and I think reasonable people can disagree.
What is NOT debatable is that a majority of congress both a majority of the house and a majority of the senate ( 48 who voted yes and at least several others Collins, Murkowski, Rubio, Toomey, Ernst Alexander who said it was “inappropriate” but not bad enough to be impeached. (and of course to be removed, anyway majority isnt enough) .Thus calling it a “hoax” is a bit silly . Perhaps not as silly, as the argument that impeachment is up to the voters, but still silly.
SYag
“And I don’t really know anyone who does (of the group mentioned)”
Its most people I know
I do disagree with most of the rest of your post,”
That is part of my point. the rest of my post isn’t debatable. Eg “Even Republicans agree (now) that he acted “inappropriately ”” This is a demonstrable indisputable fact (I mean some not all Republicans acknowledge this) . another line: “And as for Obstructing congress? Trump publicly said he is hiding evidence and instructed his stafferes not to cooperate.” again demonstrable and indisputable.
what is debatable (as Ive said) is whether these offenses are impeachable.
” I think it’s stupid when people (this is directed at people globally) only support someone if they agree with them, ”
I couldn’t agree more” How bout they just have a different view point.”
This is part of the problem A Different view point is ok (even beneficial) if grounded in fact. However Trump has ushered in a new wave of “alternative facts” reality itself can be explained differently based on your viewpoint If you dont like the fact, just label it “fake news” If you do like it say it even if not ture. This is part of who Trump is, he (really Tony Schwartz ) brags about it The art of the deal“Whatever. Glad it’s over.”
Lol! Its far from over. We have at least another year, and probably 5 more years to go.
Syag
“I always get taken aback when I read your pro democrat posts”
I’m always taken aback by the opposite!
As Iv’e said I understand liking Trump for and even voting for him becasue xyz. I don’t understand the adoration and even prestige thrown upon him,.Furthermore Thinking he should be impeached isnt even “pro democrat ” per se .
Even Republicans agree (now) that he acted “inappropriately ” to quote Lamar Alexamnder. Many other Republicans said similar (for example Collins, Rubio, Toomey Ernst).I understand celebrating his victory becasue he will keep nominating conservative justices, supporting Israel etc , so who cares if he acted inappropriately.
but I am baffled by comments like
“THE “HOAX” IS OVER: TRUMP ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES”
what hoax? Even republicans agree it happened, And as for Obstructing congress? Trump publicly said he is hiding evidence and instructed his stafferes not to cooperate.
He absolutly obstructed ccongress, That is not debatable for a rational person.whether that is impeachable is debatable. Dershowitz said 20 years agio it was. Fine, he has since changed his mind for the sake of fame., I get that. But lets be honest among ourselves.
“There’s a dirty, corrupt situation there. Take Trump out of it,”
Absolutly and thats what the legislative chance tried to do. but sadly only one Republican had the courage to vote to do what was obviously right and take Trump out of it.
Though on the plus side, I am happy to say that I was wrong, not EVERY Republican puts party ahead of country.
“Is it possible to contact any third-party seller on Amazon prior to making a purchase?”
Easily! its two clicks right next to “add to cart” is a hyperlink with seller’s name and satisfaction score cick the name and then in the upper right is a button “ask the seller a question” it is safe to click it will not unleash a virus, and it will not redirect your question to the coffee room.
yochy
“Apparently you dont sell things for a living.”
True” No one is business will be accepting of someone buying something knowing he will return it before he bought it or all the other similar permutations.”
False. (this is obviously false I’m sure youve seen sales advertised as “risk free guarantee return within 30 days for any reason” If you aren’t sure what’s included in “any reason” ask them. )” The seller only is agreeing to returns for cases where these was a valid reason that was not clearly understood before.”
Depends on the seller, you’d have to ask“Trying to game the system though is geneivah.”
It depends what you mean by “game the system” But by definition if the seller allows it isnt geneivah . againBTW this is one of my favorite topics, I’m not sure why people get so riled up and frazzled. What I’m saying is completely logical and and not really debatable Here it is again if you have a question about a return : ASK THE SELLER. I’m not sure if anyone actually disagrees with that. But for some reason they react as if they are arguing
“– The return policy you are all referring to is set by AMAZON, not by the Sellers. Sellers do not have an option to refuse to allow or accept your return.”
First of all the seller has the right to not sell on amazon . which really is the end of this reply.
but just to take it a bit furtherThis notion that amazon sets the return policy with no wiggle room for anything sold on their site isn’t true (have you never bought stuff on Amazon, Ive bought from third party sellers have them arrive broken and its a nightmare to return. what are you talking about? Has this never happened to you I understand you don’y sell on Aamzon it sounds like you don’t buy either )
Here is the verbatim description from Amazon website : both for those fulfilled by amazon and those not“Amazon.com Return Policy
Items shipped from Amazon.com, including Amazon Warehouse, can be returned within 30 days of receipt of shipment in most cases. Some products have different policies or requirements associated with them.”“Seller Return Policy
When you order from a seller that fulfills and ships its own inventory (also called a third party seller), your return is sent back to the seller instead of Amazon.com. While most sellers offer a returns policy equivalent to Amazon.com’s, some seller returns policies may vary. You can view the return policy of the seller before you purchase an item by viewing the Returns and Refunds Policy section of the seller profile page. To view the seller’s return policy, once you’ve ordered, …”furthermore when you return an item, you have to select a reason for return. Obviously it isnt muttar to lie. so if your reason isn’t there then halachicly you cant return it. If your reason is there and the seller willingly sells on amazon, then you can return it.
Of course if the seller is being forced at gunpoint to sell on amazon and accept a return policy he doesn’t like then that is worng. I didnt realize that that was the discussion. Though admittedly it is more logical than anyone having any difficulty with my non-controversial point of “ask the seller if they allow the return”
Most of your other points are similarly irrelevant or untrue
for example “It is not helpful bringing a proof from store xyz that gave you permission to do it. ”It is very helpful, as it illustrates that the statement “NO seller allows that (to purchase a product with the advance intention to use it and then return it.)” is untrue. Of course as I EXPLICITLY SAID many times this can’t be generalized to all sellers. You have to ask the seller in question
(To be clear I’m not saying “Returns within 30 days with receipt,” = returns for any reason. I’m saying ask him under what conditions can you return it)
Meno
No of course not
but he didn’t have to write “Returns within 30 days with receipt,” he could write “no returns” he can write “Returns only for people named Gimpel” He can write “Returns only if unused ”
It is his policy if you are unsure as to the parameters of the return policy, ask him. , dont ask us what the sellers return policy is“Ubiq: NO seller allows that (to purchase a product with the advance intention to use it and then return it.)”
Then what is the hava amina that you could?
This discussion is absurd. Ask the seller. IF they dont let then you cant if they do then you can.You have to ask
As I mentioned earlier The one time I asked the question The seller expressed surprise, of course they let .
Most of the time either 1) the buyer likes it , forget to return it, damages it or loses receipt (latter wouldnt be relevant online) in which case hurray they made a sale
wooooooorst case it is returned in original condition in which case loss is minimal (just repackaging whcih is less than the profit on the sale) and they sell it to someone else .
Obviously not all sellers would agree with the above, you have to ask and certainly none would want everybody to do this (see reply to GH below)syag
“The “other side” is saying that the returns are in place to encourage sales for people who made a purchase that didnt work out.”There is no other side. A seller is not obligated to accept returns. Once a sale is done it is done. The seller can opt to allow returns. The seller can allow all returns for any reason or restrict returns for certain reasons or to certain people or certain days . If the seller only allows returns from people named Gimpel it is stealing to claim your name is Gimpel and you can return. If the seller allows returns for any reason it is not stealing to return for any reason
“So you disagree saying you’ve had that conversation with sellers”
It was one seller, I’m not saying all sellers agree with that. I’m saying you have to ask the seller. “Hi I purchased this product because I needed it for xyz, now I don’t need it anymore, can I return it”
If they say yes then you can, if not not. I cannot fathom how there is any disagreement on this. Amazon has a contact seller link. ASK THEM not the coffee room.GH
“but exploiting that policy to use something without payment is not how some of us believe a Jew should behave. ”This is obviously true but the question was “is it muttar” not is there a lemalah mi meshuras hadin not to do this.
The answer to the question is it muttar is simply: It is up to the selleryochy
“To buy something in order to return is 100% geneivah”
Even if the seller allows it?“To buy something and use once is 100% geneivah”
Even if the seller allows it?“To buy something and claim that returning is no issue due to policy is 100% geneivah”
I dont understand, the so who is violating geneiva the seller for setting up the policy? why cant the seller follow the policy he enacted?“You can spin things until your head spins but it wont change the reality. Cut it out already’
The reality is simple, no spin needed. it is up to the seller to determine if he is willing to accept the return . period. It is not up to you, sorry Making up your own illogical fake halachas won’t change thatwhy do peopl make such bizzare assertions when it comes to this topic
“to get his used item that he can’t sell back fro Amazon”
since when can’t you sell used items on Amazon ?
( and thats aside the fact that there are grades of “used” memah nafshach if it is notably used, then why accept the return? and if it is not then sell it used :”like new” which sells for (almost ?) the same price as new items )“if you return a product USED to a amazom seller he takes more than a 100% loss”
Im not sure what this means? They give away used products for free? shucks, I’ve been over paying
“so if your returning a used item you bought for a wedding of for no reason its total geneiva 100%”
Even if he allows you too?
“But that doesn’t include if you purchased it with the advance certain intention of returning it.”
Of course it does.“Any reason” (your words) is any reason.
now obviously you cant lie. you cant say it was broken, if you broke it.Years ago I asked a Best buy if I could buy a GPS planning to return it. He said of course. Lets go through the possibilities
1) If I like it, lose the receipt, forget ot return it, etc theyve made a sale
2) IF I damage it they wont take it backwooooorst case I return it in the condition I got it so theyll just sell it to someone else.
win win winBottom line: these discussions are absurd. It is up to the seller. Ask them they all have a “contact us” link on Amazon ask them If they let then you can if they don’t then you cannot
“can you return it stam al pi halachah?”
If the seller lets then of course you can, why would you think otherwise?
If he doesnt let, of course you can’t why would you think you can lie?” if you can can if you buy it; and when you buy it you have intention to return it is that muttar?”
If the seller lets then of course you can, why would you think otherwise?
If he doesnt let of course you can’t . why would you think you can lie?to answer the OP “Are public displays of Frum support of Trump a safe thing?”
No. The Ribono shel olam hates chanifa. The Gemara Sota (41a) says because of chanifa the Beis Hamikdash is destroyed. Trump’s very being is built on dishonesty, and immorality. These are his defining qualities (something even most of his supporters admit, “true but Rubashkin, or true but embassy…” It is ok to support those actions but to support the man himself?
Very very dangerous
“The world does not revolve around the 5 Boros.”
what do you mean? Are there other boros?
Millhouse
“Besides high-risk sports, a kidney donor needs to take extra care to avoid dehydration, should somewhat limit protein intake, avoid or limit certain prescription drugs that are an acceptable risk for people with two kidneys,’
do you have any source for this?
I have counseled and cared for many patients both donors and recipients and am not aware of any data that supports this do you have any source for these assertions?
I don’t even understand the logic of some of these recommendations. Take “high-risk sports” I assume the logic is that those with 2 kidneys have a spare should one get damaged in high risk sports.
so should those with one liver avoid high risk sports?
I’m not saying it is risk free, but that doesnt mean risks need to be invented
“This is a discussion about banning guns,”
no it is not“including what guns can someone get”
no it is not” I don’t think people lie in front of congress.”
Lol!“This is a discussion about …controlling guns, ”
That is true .but your comments are STILL irrelevant
“2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides”
All the MORE reason to control guns!“The majority of rifle use outside of the military and hunting is self defense.”
A very questionable claim, and any way so what?” The majority of violent crimes with guns are done with a semi-automatic handgun”
true, but so what?Millhouse “AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It’s an ordinary semi-automatic rifle like any other”
An Ar 15 is in fact an assault rifle. now granted it depends how “assault rifle” is defined,
here are the webster definitions
1) any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
2) a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fireAn Ar 15 is an assault rifle under, certainly the second definition in that it resembles a millitary style weapon.
There are of course other definitions as well, such as the presence of a pistol grip or flash suppressor, both of which are present on a standard Colt AR -15that said Lotr’s post was silly as every single one of his points (even if true) is unrelated to this thread
KY
“Had someone in Monsey had a gun in the room it would now be” the dead guy who tried to attack with a machete. ””Unless of course the guy who had the gun was the killer… which is my point
“If there two scum knew that any Random citizen may be packing heat, they may well have thought twice.”
Seems doubtful. they knew the police were after them, they werent planning to come out alive .
and again, Im not opposed to the store owner, or anybody else for that matter having a gun. I’m opposed to making our already to lax gun control measures looser
” what you wrote is simply not true, and quoting a bunch of liars doesn’t make it true. ”
I know you are but what am I?
Seriously, data please.“When you adjust for demographics the US is very far from the lead in homicide rates, even if you artificially limit your inquiry to “high income countries” (and why would you do that?)”
you would do that becasue obviously homicide is governed by many factors not solely gun ownership. Obviously a society with no police force (or an ineffective one) would likely have more homicides (as chazal tell us). Additionally poverty plays a role. Thus by limiting ourselves to high income countries, we control some of those factors.
” In NY private sellers are at the mercy of dealers because they have to get a dealer to run the check for them. That is a big problem.”
why is that a problem? let alone a big one?“Because if you’re not, then how do you suggest private sellers of guns get access to background checks on their buyers?”
Easy, we can have the buyer have to provide consent for the background check.
and right back at you, assuming you support background checks at all, Are you really claiming that in order to prevent a schizophrenic with criminal history from getting a gun you would be willing to let any gun dealer run a criminal check on you, for any reason they like?!
either you support background checks, and any obstacle that can be overcome by licensed gun dealers can be overcome by unlicensed gun dealers. Or you dont support background checks, proving my original point in bringing this up in response to bk613 incorrect assertion that “I don’t think any rational person is arguing that a schizophrenic with a criminal record should legally be allowed to own a gun.”“Another point: Imposing background checks on private sellers will do nothing to satisfy the gun-grabbers.”
thats a silly, point If background checks are a good thing we should impose them if not, then we shouldn’t, worrying about what would and wouldn’t satisfy gun grabbers is not a logical way to make decisions.“Who says it has to be in a football stadium?”
the size of the crowd
” and where people are able to defend themselves they are at less risk of being killed. That is a fact.”
Nope sadly more guns leads to more homicide as has been shown over and over (and isnt at all surprising)
At the national level Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-8
and at the state level Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.
” has one big problem — private people are unable to do that.”
This is a problem that has been solved in Several states including NY
“You would not want anyone to be able to run a check on anyone, at any time, without a good reason”
Some would argue that preventing a schizophrenic with criminal history from getting a gun is a s good a reason as as it gets“If I have a gun to sell, and I find someone to buy it, making me run a check means effectively telling me I can’t sell it. I”
If that is the price we have to pay to ensure criminals cant get guns, its a small price to pay.““and you want to make it EASIER for him to have had a gun????”
I don’t think any rational person is arguing that a schizophrenic with a criminal record should legally be allowed to own a gun.”You’d think that but sadly you’d be wrong
Obviously nobody is showing up and asking “Hi I’m schizophrenic can I have a gun please”
The ONLY way t o stop a schizophrenic with a criminal record from getting a gun (a measure that thankfully you support) is to require EVERY gun sale to be done with a background check. While background checks are generally required, they are not always required. Many states allow private sellers to sell without a background check. The so called – gun show loophole . A schizophrenic with a criminal record can go to a gun show in a neighboring state like CT where he can buy a long gun or a bit further to RI where he can get a hand gun from an unlicensed dealer with no background checks
while a vast majority of Anmericans DO oppose this, including a vast majority of Republicans, and of Gun owners included. The NRa does not, and thus the GOP (as a party) does not.
They do in fact want to keep it easy for schizophrenic with a criminal record to get guns.“Why was the siyum hashas for the Daf Yomi made on 1/1? ”
Because it was the closest date to the siyum that the stadium was available, with the added benefit that many people were off.
“Was it right for the agudah to put yeshivas all over in a position to have learning cut short for their siyum?”
Yes