Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
APY,
It is not just the name and product sold. There is a lot more than that still visible on the sign.
If you think the sign was for the public school children, you must be smoking something. The pictures were not of little kids and children’s clothing. Or even young teens.
Zahavasdad,
Where is the tznius sign in KJ? IN KJ. Do you see why it is impossible to compare the two? They did not put the sign in Woodbury to offend people. The bochurim did not go to the Village to spray the sign.
Such language is often the result of not stopping for a moment to think what you are about to say and thus need to fill the empty space with a meaningless filler word.
Truth is, looking at the sign, I do not think there is even damage to H&M, rather, these bochurim probably did them a big favor.
The ad is still there. It still says H&M. You can still tell that they sell clothing. the difference is that the offensive part is covered.
people who may have turned away before from observing the ad now can look at it. (This is especially poignant for all the brilliant commenters who say, why do people have to look. The sign is there, should tpeople have to stumble on the streets of thier neighborhoods because someone would like to put untzinuyus things all over?)
So lets observe what the result is:
1) The ad is still there and still says H&M.
2) Had a tarp been spread, even H&M would be unvisible
3) More people can now actually look at the ad, because the non-tzniyus portions are covered, thus increasing viewership.
These bochurimactually did H&M a big favor. And if H&M had yashrus, they should actually pay them for expanding the potential market the ad can reach.
Charlie,
there are many such mitzvos, to destroy property even when it is not yours. Psilei elohayhem tisrifun baeish. Matzeyvosayhem tishaberun. And so on, many, many such.
And there is also a concept of matzilin oison.
So you are totally wrong.
It does say in pirkie avos “al tarbeh sicha im haesha”. Is there anything inherently wrong? Probably not, however, from what I have seen, conversations about shidduchim lead to much tangential converstion. And such a relationship between singles, without intention of any tachlis can lead to trouble (certainly can play on frustrations).
There is a much talked about concept of an “office wife” (not referring to any illicit behaviour), which defines a close office relationship that is not in synch with a Torah haskafah and gedarim that the chachamim have established, for those who are concerned with living with a Torah haskafah. Obviously not everyone considers such a haskafa important, but that is for you to consider.
TBT,
No bone, just wondering why the silly comment.
If the person is ready to accept the minhagim, kol hakovod, however it can very well be a reason not to get involved. And the differences betweeen an Ashkenazy and Sefaradi are much greater that differences between diffierent chasidus. And that difference too is considered.
To say “why not” shows a lack of understanding in the different mesoros. It is not a matter of one being right and another being wrong, but they are different. And there are a number of cultural differences as well. These are all valid reasons why someone would not go out with Sefardi, Ashkenazy or Chosid and so on. And all that is obvious to anyone who appreciates mesorah.
I am not saying there cannot be fantastic shidduchim, however, it is not for everyone andi s not something that you shake off with “why not”.
Chucky,
Who says the food is better? You cannot interpolate your poor experiences to rest of the population.
And why not date a sefardi? It depends how much mesorah means to you? Would it bother someone to make such drastic changes. That is besides any other differences that may exisit that would preclude a shidduch.
Perhaps someone who has no mesorah, or makes it up as they go along would ask why not, but for most people there can be very well established reasons not to go out with a sefardi and vice versa as well.
Would you go out with a chasiddish person? Someone from Meah Shearim?
So guys, you heard it hear first, and straight from the wolf’s mouth. Wolf’s intentions are not pure.
Wolf,
“MO covers a *wide* range of observance”
Or a lack thereof.
However, it was not my point that *all* MO do so, rather that there is a significant portion of those self identifying as MO that do refer to eating in a non kosher restaurant as “eating out”.
Contrary to some posters who feel that their experience is the only experience.
I was asking the OP to clarify the question because of the alternative meaning assigned to the term used. And which has a very significant bearing on the question and responses thereto.
Charlie,
this may come as a surprise to you, your experiencesand not proof of anything. I was relating what was accepted as the norm in a large NY MO school.
What do you mean by “eating out”. I have learnt that by modern orthodox, “eating out” has a very different meaning than what chareidim mean when they say eating out.
I heard this from someone who was a new Rebbi in a MO school. He was surprised to see that the students were shocked to hear that this rebbi would “eat out” in a restaurant with his wife. His surprised was removed when it was explained that eating out meant eating fish in non-kosher restaurants.
Apparently it was not uncommon, but they saw that their Rebbi was not MO, and surprised that he would “eat out”.
He quickly corrected their misunderstanding about where he would eat.
However, I think you have to define what you mean by “Eating out” for the many non chareidi posters.
Wolf,
Your shabbos must have an interesting tzurah if those are your minhagim.
(Keeping in mind the kedusha of minhag Yisroel)
How would your neighbor describe you?
Wolf,
the question was put out to the general public to answer as they understand the both terms. If you do not want to answer, or do not have an answer don’t.
Deflections like yours above do not add anything to the conversation.
Depends on the day of the week. Depends if they know what “Shabbos” means. (Or like the joke goes, if they know what “good” means.) But definitely not to dogs or cats.
SJS,
You are making assumptions that have no basis. You have absolutely no idea whether these parents can pay more or not. You know the old saying about assuming. I will not participate in your assumption. I will stay with the facts. There are numerous cases for whom it is not possible to get more funding. And Rabbi Shapiro’s departure does not seem to lay primarily with his own compensation.
Ofcourse,
To quote you “I love the smell of money. Hee hee.” This seems to clearly explain your position throughout the comments.
SJSinNYC,
I do not understand what your two comments have to do with each other.
Do you think he should or should not receive chodesh l’shana?
BYBP is a community school and took that responsibility seriously, they would accept students even when there was no way of getting paid.
I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of those receiving scholarships cannot pay more and this is the school that accepted upon itself the responsibility to make sure that all children recieve a proper education.
I am not saying it was not first choice school for many, but the school also accepted those students that were not first choice for other schools for reasons including finances.
I dont get the feeling that R Shapiro’s issue was primarily his getting paid. Much more that he felt that there he could not remain and follow the directives of the Board.
AlwaysHere,
Your’s is a very moving story, however this story is not about BYBPHS. The two schools are unrelated.
Should someone who is not in kollel and is at or below the level to recieve food stamps, should they use them or not?
Well, at least that’s a clear answer.
Would the Moderator or Editor care to identify which one is actually adding the bolded remarks so if a commenter wishes to address the bolded remarks, it can be directed to the correct individual.
No
I am wondering who is writing the comments in bold at the bottom of some comments. It does not appear to be written by the person whose name the comment is associated with.
Either a Moderator or the Editor himself
“As long as they are basically respectful to me, I don’t care what they call their dog.”
I am not talking about how YOU are addressed. The person may have no idea who else you have adressed in the same manner.
My comments refer to what the greeting means to the person offereing the greeting.
It would seem to me that a if asomeone greets a person the same way he greets an animal, the greeting itself, by the person making it has not much value.
The way I look at it, offering a greeting to person is being respectful of them, it is a way of working on myself, to further proper respect of others. If all I am doing is offering a greeting that is appropriate for a dog, I am not raising my respect of others by offering such a meaningless greeting.
And if you were familiar with the president, would you not say sir? Of course not. Even his closest aides are sure to add the honorific.
And you say Sir when saying hi to a stranger in pasing?
But, following your thought process, and your comments, you would say it is appropriate to address a person the same way you would address a dog.
Wolf,
I do not see where I assume that a greeting is strictly for a Tzelem Elokim. Reread what was written, it says nowhere near such a thing.
I was wondering about greeting an animal and a Tzelem Elokim in the same manner.
I doubt you would greet the President in the same manner that you greet a person in shul. You would not say hi in an offhanded manner to him. Intrinsic in a greeting is it being respectful and appropriate to who is being greeted.
Greeting your neighbor as you would a dog, appears not to be respectful. (except that you are a Wolf)
Is there not more to a greeting than just saying a few nice words by rote, with no real meaning behind what is being said?
So, if you believe midos are at least partially hereditary, this would mean that it would make sense to consider yichus.
Does greeting an animal cheapen the meaning of greeting a Tzelem Elokim when done in the same manner?