Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
chofetz
my feeling would be that if you are noheg to always daven with a hat and coat, that you should do so even in situations of discomfort (unless there is a possibility of actually becoming sick) and consider it an opportunity to invoke your powers of concentration to try to not pay attention to the discomfort, ideally.
okay, it just seemed that way.
i also heard that sof
i know aries, thanks, it was sort of a joke
We SHOULD do that before every davening. nevertheless we do what we can. our failure to live up to the highest ideals should not prevent us from striving towards them.
besides its an an analogy wolf, as you know an analogy is an analogy.
i dont know why you feel it imperative to knock down every ideal you see posted here. i suppose in the interest in seeking the truth.
If you pour into an empty glass, halfway, it is half full
if you empty out a full glass, halfway, it is half empty
philosopher
its okay to judge people. the main use of seichel is in the process of judging. judging what is right and what is wrong. in ourselves and in others. judgment is necessary and one of the highest functions of a Yid.
*acting* properly according to Torah on ones judgments is equally important however.
you of course know this, im just stating the obvious to those who continually criticize you for this.
i have heard it much more often used in the spiritual sense in general conversation and shmoozim.
in learning it is usually used to refer to the physical aspect.
clearly you spend too much time learning :-)………(c’v)
thanks sc
i dont think i like that idea
I’m from out of town and dont know anything about bungalow colonies. but i thought the families went there together. you mean just the men go?
Thank you gavra
Because you are a son of Hashem, a prince of the palace, a royal soldier, a king and a priest.
Some suggest beer (or other chmar Medina)
philosopher and zach
you two are going to be going around in circles until you clarify what area of science you are referring to. I have written about this before.
There is a continuum:
from technology on the one hand which is solidly based on repeatable observable phenomena, which has been highly consistent and highly successful at making accurate predictions.
to the other end of the continuum, deep theory which is based primarily on exceedingly wide extrapolations, and assumptions which usually have no basis except that they are consistent with other already accepted assumptions. There is very little if any evidence or “proof” except for the various present day measurements that are applied to the theory using the assumptions that themselves cannot be proven. Something like that….
So if you are going to argue the qualities of “science”, if you want to get somewhere meaningful, I would suggest you define what area of science you are talking about.
Computer modeling, though helpful when nothing else is available, has later been shown to be way off the mark in many cases, and frequently there are widely differing and even opposite results depending on the assumptions made.
Here’s some points to think about. It also helps to keep in mind the arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes (unless under great pressure, academic scrutiny, and media observation) which generally characterizes the scientific establishment.
And the masses who swallow their pronouncements without critical thought tend to mirror those qualities.
Now think:
How old is the earth thought to be now, about 5 BILLION years, I believe is the current estimate. global temperatures have been markedly fluctuating since then, if recent measurements are at all representative. There have certainly been major fluctuations and minor fluctuations, and fluctuations and trends within larger fluctuations and trends.
And what temperature records do we have. Maybe 400 years of any kind of measurements. 100-200 years of somewhat scientifically controlled measurments, 50-75 years of accurate and relatively widespread measurements. And do we have yearly measurements over the vast expanses of the globe, urban areas, jungles, all over the oceans, in the oceans (the vast buffer of global temperatures), on the ground, 100 feet up, 2,000 feet up, 10 miles up, over all areas of the globe.
We expect to determine the meaningfulness of the current trend of temperature change in the context of the equivalent of a few seconds in a million years!
And what is the supposed culprit in this? Carbon dioxide, a small molecule found in 3 parts per 10, 000 in the atmosphere!
That’s enough for me, I’m getting tired. I dont have the time for this, but hopefully someone else will carry on the likely ensuing discussion, I’m not particularly interested.
John Coleman is not a meteorologist; he is a television personality. To become a meterologist you need extensive knowledge in physics, usually a doctorate
Many TV weather reporters are meteorologists.
According to the American Meteorological Society, a meteorologist is a person with specialized education, using scientific principles to explain, understand, observe or forecast the earth’s atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere effects the earth and life on the planet. This requires at least a four year college degree in meteorology or related sciences.
But you can call him whatever you wish. And please feel free to believe in global warming. If I have time later today I’ll try to bring a few suggestions for people to think about when analyzing the issues instead of blindly believing everything they read in the newspaper and see on TV. I don’t know enough about the history of the matter to evaluate whether or not Mr. Coleman brings valid points. I only know he believes that global warming is a scam. That’s enough for me to present his arguments here.
It is perfectly OK and some hold preferable to do Havdalah as you usually do.
Eishel Avraham 551; Chazon Ish (quoted in Imrei Yosher, pg. 4)
Some prefer a minor drink the wine.
The preferred minor for this purpose is a boy beyond the age of chinuch but who is not yet old enough to understand the concept of mourning the destruction of the Beis ha-Mikdash
Mishnah Berurah 551:70. [It is difficult to define the age of such a child.]
If such a child is not present, any boy under bar mitzvah age will do.
I am also very skeptical of conspiracy theories in general. But I dont think he has painted a picture of a bunch of people meeting in a boardroom and saying: “Lets make up this theory and pull the wool over everyones eyes.”
He is describing a number of key people acting irresponsibly and dishonestly in their own interests. I am not skeptical of such an occurrence.
I also would like to see a move away from petroleum
A little less emotional, John Coleman describes the history and origin of the “global warming” movement
“The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.
Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.
Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.
Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.
Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.
Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.”
The Other Side of the Story:
some comments on Global warming by meteorologist John Coleman:
“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere meteorologist, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I suspect you might like to say to me, “John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D’s in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D’s. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90’s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There were a few who didn’t fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.
I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970’s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.
I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D’s, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
I am very excited about the future of particle physics and am trying to watch it closely.
I have a personal feeling that the depth of our understanding (or realizing our inability to totally understand) the innermost nature of the Creation is paralleling the course of man’s history and the coming of Moshiach.
I have a feeling that the closer we get to the “final understanding”, the one simple “equation of everything”, the closer is Moshiach.
the Hubble space telescope was able to image the Bullet Cluster and see the results of gravitational lensing from dark matter
they did NOT necessarily see “the results of gravitational lensing from dark matter”. they saw gravitational lensing and THEORIZED that it was caused by dark matter because they have as of now, no other explanation.
Many prominent physicists have openly statied that we have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of dark matter. It’s not my idea, I don’t know anything substantial about it. All that we have is that IF dark matter does exist, that would explain away a lot of problems.
However Dark Matter and Dark Energy we have very much detected.
absolutely not!
what we have is a contradiction between the detected behavior of orbiting bodies and the amount of mass that SHOULD be present to account for this behavior
we have a problem. dark matter is a PURELY THEORETICAL construct, that if it were in fact to exist it would account for the contradiction. This is a very very far cry from saying it has been detected.
It’s like saying my car is getting 100 times the mileage that it should. Well if my friendly neighbor was putting gas in my tank every night, that WOULD in fact explain the discrepancy, but it is not at all a proof that that is the explanation. I have in no way, by having that thought, detected my neighbor doing so.
they are not unobservable, just we have not manged to do it yet.
IF THEY EXIST then they may be observable. one possible reason why they have not been observed yet is because they do not exist. no one knows whether they exist or not. they HOPE they exist.
because the major Kashrus organizations say you can.
heres a statement from OU:
a little wishy-washy.
a more decisive statement from cRc:
“All unflavored beers, domestic and imported, with no additives listed on the ingredient label are acceptable, even without a Kosher certification. This applies to both USA and imported beers, including non-alcoholic and dark beers.”
flavored beers need a heksher
If it had a reliable hashgacha, the advantage is that you wouldnt have to be a buckie on all the difficult liquor shailos. You could put your trust on the store’s mashgiach, like any store that is under a reliable heksher. If this particular store does not have a mashgiach then it is not a “kosher liquor store” but only a stam liquor store owned by a Yid.
What are these legitimate shailas that might prevent you from buying a sealed bottle of liquor with a hechsher at the store?
the shailos are not primarily on sealed bottles with a heksher. the shailos are on bottles without a heksher. (most whiskies, beer, etc.)
a body of water does not have to be considered a spring to be a kosher mikveh for most purposes. a large (40 seah of course) puddle of water formed from rain is a kosher mikveh
Newtonian mechanics perfectly describes what happens
not perfectly. only extremely closely, not the same.
Relativistic and quantum effects can’t even be detected except for things that are either very small, very large, or very fast.
quite true
And if you can’t detect it, science isn’t interested in it.
not at all, unless you are referring exclusively to the technology end of the spectrum of science
for example some of the biggest areas of interest in science today are dark matter, dark energy, and “strings”. none of which have ever been detected directly or indirectly. their effects have never been detected as well but are THEORIZED to exist to try to explain certain problems
Science is dependent ONLY on things that are detectible through observation or experiment
The other end of the spectrum (technology) being based on repeatable, observable, measurable, existing phenomena, although not sacrosanct, and while subject to frequent modification and clarification is almost infinitely more reliable and changes generally by a process of “evolution”, not “revolution”
When evaluating the reliability of “science” one must be very careful where on the continuum one is referring to.
science has nothing to say about the nature of the spiritual universe
that is generally true, however it has nothing to do with anything that i have pointed out
You didn’t understand anything i said.
pusheta
you are carrying your idea to the extreme.
If you applied such exactitude to other areas there would be no language whatsoever and we may as all be mute.
“My neighbor has a young child.”
How can someone say that? It is meaningless. What is a neighbor? Someone who lives adjacent to me? On my block? In my general neighborhood? In my city? In my country? And the usage depends on where you are talking about. A rural area? The city? Suburbs?
A neighbor in Manhattan might refer to within a block or so. In Texas rural areas, it might mean a ranch 20 miles away. Is the neighbor tall, short, a man, woman, adolescent, a gorilla?
“has young child”? An infant? a toddler? a 10 year old? A toddler is a far cry from a 10 year old, which one is meant? Is it a boy? a girl? Jewish? not Jewish? Mexican? an Arab?
“has a” young child
what does that mean. how can we use such imprecise language?
Is the child a slave? kidnapped? adopted? just visiting?
a birth child?
Terms in any language are always imprecise.
We use them and add further characterizations and stipulations to clarify them to the precision that is necessary to elicit the required understanding. This is quite elementary.
These particular terms you don’t like because they can carry potentially damaging connotations to some people is perfectly reasonable. But your argumentation as to their IMPRECISION is spurious at best.
I suspect however you are going to continue along the same lines.
look at it sideways. it’s a laughing face with a wide open mouth.
but i certainly won’t call you ignorant
😀
I only wash my children’s clothing in the nine days
And the rest of the year you DON’T wash your children’s clothing?
know nothing of the real world,
They know a great deal about the real world, unfortunately not always enough. They know less about the world of Sheker, unfortunately sometimes too much.
and like it or not,t hat is the world we live in
Which world we live in is not the same for everyone. It is our job to live in the real world as much as we can, and uproot the world of Sheker from our lives as much as we can. That’s why we are here.
the path it takes will follow the laws set down by Newton 300+ years ago.
As in previous threads I have to disagree again. It will follow the laws of newton only because there is a single system in your example. For an observer moving relative to the path of the pencil it will NOT follow the physics of newton. It will practically be the same in this particular range of velocity, but it will only be an extremely close APPROXIMATION (for practical purposes it will be the same as newtonian physics, but in truth there will be an infinitesimal difference not significant for practical purposes). If the observer were to move in a large speed relative to the pencil, newtonian physics will give a result quite different from the truth of the matter.
Any time there are two observational systems, moving relative to one another, newtonian physics will give the wrong result in a mathematical sense, (ie 10,000,000,000 is not identical to 10,000,000,001). In the range of speeds in which we generally operate this difference will not have any practical impact, nevertheless this difference always exists and when it comes to particle physics the difference is large and critical.
That’s quite a reasonable approach. I do use them occasionally, but usually follow with some further characterization, depending on circumstances.
I repeat what I said. Like any descriptive term (label), they are not exact, yet they have some usefulness.
If you think their inexactness is dangerous enough to outweigh their communication lubrication, then don’t use them.
There is not an exact co-incidence between the label and the concept, as in almost any definition you can think of. Still there is a general utility in using those particular words. Certainly if you say yeshivish it will conjure up quite a different image in the listener’s mind than if you say modernish. Exactly what image will be conjured up will be somewhat different for each listener, still there will likely be a great deal of similarity as well, in most cases.
To argue that those labels have no meaning or are useless is ridiculous. To say that they are subject to misinterpretation, or they may have negative connotations, and/or they should not be used is something else.
I tried googling “fish water drinking sakana”
and all I could get was information about japanese restaurants
Of course they will face judgment for this. We will all face judgment for all of our deeds, small and large.
Only Hashem knows their inner hearts, and only Hashem knows what the judgment will be, favorable or not.
unless they are yourself
see the famous Medresh telling the story of how Shlomo HaMelech captured the king of the Sd, other Medrashim about the world of Sd.
See Mesechta Pesachim ( i think in the 9th perek)a few blatt on the subject.
I’m just saying it’s not so simple the all sd are mazikim created by aveiras. I have no idea what the percentages are.
WIF: that is one form of mazik
There are others.
Firstly, it is dangerous to discuss these creatures. I don’t believe anyone today knows their nature exactly, but they are known to be more spiritual than man, but less than Melachim who are pure spirit. They have a physical component as well.
As far as the dybbuk, this is some sort of spiritual remnant or gilgul or something of a person who once lived. This is what regards the story of the Chofetz Chaim
AOM
I think we’re all aware of the shitah of the Shtusenstuffer Rebbe. And I think YOU are well aware that the majority of Poskim rule not in accordance with him.
As far as parsley, I don’t think your lightheaded reply deserves a serious response.
😉
1. square kneidlach are assur.
2. parsley is not assur, but if the color is significantly noticeable, it pasuls the kneidlach. One can still eat them, but is not Yotzei.
If a vegetarian eats only vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
reminds me of a new and real mishigos: fruitarianism.
they won’t eat anything a vegetarian won’t eat plus they won’t eat vegetables. eating fruit doesn’t destroy the plant but picking and eating vegetables does.
btw wolf, my “well done” comment was meant wholly sincerely. (in the past you have misinterpreted a comment or two of mine as sarcastic)
The Chovos HaLvovos has a whole section devoted to how a Yid should choose his occupation. It’s in the Shaar HaBitochon.
I know someone who is a dental hygienist. Pay is excellent. Training is relatively short and inexpensive. You can choose and keep changing your hours (it’s easy to contract with different dentists for different hours). You are in high demand. You can work a lot or a little.