Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Duvee ? UJM
“If you’re suggesting Reuven lied to Beis Din, which is not the case I presented, ”
you didn’t present a case.
Obviously each of these cases involves a myriad of details” then that’s the Halacha. The request for divorce is rightfully, under explicit Halacha, denied”
Again, That’s the halacha in Even Haezer
There is no explicit halacha that prevents me from practicing my bagpipe “skills” every day when my neighbor tries to take his nap.
Yet most people , would grant that is not a very nice thing to do.There are many cases where A Rav will encourage someone to give a Get where there is no hope of reconciliation, although m’ikar hadin he isnt obligated too and he is hoping things will change. Are those Rabbonim wrong for needlessly causing gittin that are not required?
“How’s it possible that her Bein adom lechaveiro is to agree to continue the marriage while at the same time his Bein adom lechaveiro is to give a Get??”
I gave you an example: Bein adom lechaveiro involves 2 people. It is your bein adom lechaverio obligation to not let a door hit me in the face, and it is mine ot not make a big deal if you did. The two are not exclusive.
I think I made my point clear.
I will sum up concisely:
All I am saying is causing tzar to another person by forcing her to remain in a marriage that has no hope of reconciliation, is a wrong thing to do.
דַּעֲלָךְ סְנֵי לְחַבְרָךְ לָא תַּעֲבֵיד — זוֹ הִיא כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ
I am not saying anything controversial
“That effectively answers/addresses those questions.”
So it doesnt.
see Shulchan Aruch 154 few of those cases are grounds to force him to divorce.
and besides you are dodging
LEts say the beis din got it wrong.
Reuvein knows the truth. Are you saying there is no bein adom lechaveiro reason for him to give her a get ?“If you agree that her Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation is to tell Reuven that she’s willing to continue the marriage then obviously he doesn’t have the contradictory obligation to give her a Get.”
That doesn’t hold true in the slightest., as I already pointed out.
Bein adom lechaveiro often goes two ways“If you wrote – I think or I’m guessing, that wouldn’t be a problem.”
I don’t get it . why do I have to write it in every post, but you don’t?
You said “She doesn’t believe it” and LATER clarified “I don’t know for sure. I’m guessing.”
And yet yo uclaim, when I said “The case will not be heard.” it WAS a “Lie of fabrication” (Even though it wasn’t a lie nor a fabrication) when at that point I ALREADY had said I was ” make[ing] a prediction,” that may turn out to be wrong?
Why do I have to put “I think” in every post, and you don’t ?
“Suppose Dina asks Reuven for a Get. …”
You left out a lot of details
Is Dina crying herself to sleep everynight? miserable? Can’t stand him. Maybe he is even being verbaly abusive to her
In a case where the answer to the above is yes.
Are you really saying him forcing (no quotes that is what he is doing) her to stay married is a nice thing to do?“Dina should try her best to put on a smile and tell Reuven that she’s willing to continue the marriage. That would be her Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation.”
That may very well be, but that wasnt the discussion. what of HIS Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation THAT is the question
Bein adom lechaveiro involves 2 people. It is your bein adom lechaverio obligation to not let a door hit me in the face, and it is mine ot not make a big deal if you did. The two are not exclusive
Same as above but it didn’t yet get to the point of a Beis Din trial. Reuven has no Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation to give a Get.
same as above, depends on the circumstances.
If you think forcing a man forcing a woman to remain married to him when she doesnt want to. IS not lacking in bein adom lechaveiro. But her bein adom lechaveiro requires her to remain in an abusive marriage . We must be speaking different languages.
: “A Get refuser without a Siruv” is the same oxymoron”
This is incorrect.
You are making the same mistake as earlier. You mean the the Hilchos Even Haezer sense. however in the bein adom lechaveiro sense, you are incorrect
(to be clear that does not necessarily allow for pressure shaming etc THOSE halachos are found in Even Haezer, whci his the source of your confusion)
““And to be clear, so she is lying now. correct?”
Of course, she is!”
amazing
when she tells the truth you think she lied when she lies you think she tells the truth.
I have never met anyone whose reality compass is as backwards as yours.
I’m not going to rehash your nonsensical interpretation of “lies of fabrication” again as I already explained to you how If something is not a Lie or if not a fabrication it cannot be a “lie of fabrication” certainly if it is neither.
I had left some questions for you that you are too dishonest to answer, I won’t bother posting them again
but just for fun’s sake . Yo usaid “If you would have just said – I’m guessing what SCOTUS would do – it would have never been a problem.”
Lol! I basically did say that on Jan 7′
“If her case gets heard by the supreme Court. wow was I wrong. …But I did make a prediction, and if it turns out wrong it is wrong… No big deal It is ok to be wrong.”I acknowledged that I was making a prediction that could be wrong.
“She’s only saying that to get out of her lawsuit.”
Lol!
To be clear, so she is lying now?
“She doesn’t believe it.”
Lol!
How can you possibly know that?
What was it you called someone who says things they don’t KNOW to be true (even if it was true which of course this isn’t)And to be clear, so she is lying now. correct?
Hope youve been well
I don’t plan on repeating the same points over and over.
But to follow up on your request:
On Feb 7 (and again and again on the 8th and 9th) I asked
“When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she lied”after dodging for a bit you replied “It’s too early to even ask questions about this lawsuit.
Ask me much later.”she now says “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
yowza
I should hope so. Not only did she admit that she lied, but she also called anyone who didn’t realize she was lying a not a “reasonable person”
You sound angry
Which part of it do is getting to you, your kids or the Torah ?
“Is it okay to use them on Pesach?”
yes“How would I clean them?”
washing machine“What’s everyone here planning to do?”
Can’t speak for everyone, but washing machine is pretty easyujm
Is that question geared to me?
If you are asking me, the simplest way is for the parents not to eat Gebrokts , as many do, and it sounds like ywnjudy’s family did.
The other possibility is to be violate the minhag for the sake of Sholom bayis, her kibbud av, though he might need hatarsa nedarim (ask your LOr) though seems rather obnoxious on the family’s part which understandably might make him not want to go.“I think the biggest problem is that someone would look on line for the answer to a halachic shaila.”
meh
not a problem and not a halachic shailahywnjudy
“Well, speak of minhag, as a child we ate gebrok”
sounds like it isnt your family minhag. ITs nice that your family changed to accommodate a sibling in law, but that in no way obligates you.
Of course if said sibling will be joining with you , you should check with them (though odds are if they keep gebrokts they wouldn’t put any dip, certainly none containing water on matzah)ujm
Not necessarily see last line https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&st=&pgnum=486
ywnjudy
There isnt really “hilchos Gebrokts” It is a minhag, keeping minhagim are important. The exact nature of the minhag varies some are makpid on keilim some are not. Some are makpid only on cooked dishes or something that is soaked not if it gets wet 30 seconds before it goes in your mouth (where it will get wet anyway) .Of course some won’t even put it on the table .
So ywnjudy is it “ok” to dip the matza n it on PEsach?
Well there is some water so strictly speaking it is Gebroks. If your family is very strict then don’t dip it. If sort of strict go for it.Shabbos Hagadol you have a different issue, as matzah shouldn’t be eaten next Shabbos Erev Pesach
” , but we claim that we are unchanged.”
Who claims that?
So much has changed We don’t have a Beis hamikdash a king, not too mention countless modern inventions like printing presses, cars etc. Why are all those changes “ok” but changing the script, THAT is where you draw the line?
“What makes us different than the italians, iranians, egyptians and so on ”
That we keep the Torah.
” what is the proof that we have not changed”
We have!I’m not dismissing your questions.
Just pointing out that your angst over the sudden realization that not everything we do/practice etc is EXACTLY the same is a bit misplaced“If they mutually agree that the marriage is over, then normally your point is correct”
Fantastic then we are in full agreement.
Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point
“Now this point I must take strong exception to. If strictly speaking he’s not halachicly obligated to divorce, as you give in your example, then generally speaking he has no moral, ethical or other imperative to do so even if she wants to divorce.”
To clarify what I meant. I am talking about a case whre the marriage is over. You ask who decides? Whoever you want. I’m not talking about a specific case strictly in the abstract.
If the marriage is over and there a get should be given (barring some exceptional cases)
“My underlying point is that this newfangled idea that if one spouse wants to divorce when the other does not, then the one wanting it generally has the right to it over the objections of the other spouse, is wrongheaded and has no basis in halacha.”
Yes I get that.
My underlying point is that there are other aspects to halacha. You mean in hilchos Gitin there is no basis. There are other halachos Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov is important too.
I don’t intend on this turning into one of my endless debates.
ALL I am saying is that aside for Hilchos Gitin, aa person should be a mentch.
If the marriage is over, (however and whomever you would have define it) to be a mencth a get should be given“If they mutually agree that the marriage is over, then normally your point is correct”
Fantastic then we are in full agreement.
Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point
“Now this point I must take strong exception to. If strictly speaking he’s not halachicly obligated to divorce, as you give in your example, then generally speaking he has no moral, ethical or other imperative to do so even if she wants to divorce.”
To clarify what I meant. I am talking about a case whre the marriage is over. You ask who decides? Whoever you want. I’m not talking about a specific case strictly in the abstract.
If the marriage is over and there a get should be given (barring some exceptional cases)
“My underlying point is that this newfangled idea that if one spouse wants to divorce when the other does not, then the one wanting it generally has the right to it over the objections of the other spouse, is wrongheaded and has no basis in halacha.”
Yes I get that.
My underlying point is that there are other aspects to halacha. You mean in hilchos Gitin there is no basis. There are other halachos Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov is important too.
If they don’t have enough sunscreen absolutely
“But he doesn’t have an obligation to give a Get”
I think a point that gets blurred in these conversations , is although he doesn’t have a halachic obligation, he may have a moral one.
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get should be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.
Is that really a controversial statement?Now granted, he may not be strictly speaking obligated to do so, and pressuring him to do so unwillingly may create a real problem of Get meusah. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a bad person, who deserves shame .
Imagine a person who literally kept his wife chained in his basement, didn’t let her get out and get sunlight. All would agree that would be crazy, and would support shaming him to free her, even without beis din demanding him to (again a big difference is him freeing her wouldn’t create get meuseh in this scenario) Keeping a woman chained in a dead marriage is not much different than keeping her chained in a basement.
Again, yes we don’t know the facts in all cases, and mob rule can lead to real problems as NOYB pointed out . But in regards to ” can anyone possibly think of a worse thing to encourage than “hey random people, form a mob and go ruin someone’s life based on hearsay”?” Yes I think keeping women stuck in a marriage that is over might be worse, and is definitely more common .
It seems to me that in response to the “feminist bent” (real or perceived) , and perhaps anti-halachic outlook and even practices done by many in a desire to free these women, many in our camp come to view all these Get refusers as tzadikim except in a narrow subset of cases.
I guess my question really is the following
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get SHOULD* be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.(*note should does not equal halachically obligated vis a vis hilchos Gittin in this sentence )
“At what point is someone a “get refuser?””
In what regard?
To allow pressure to be placed to encourage him giving a get? OR in regards to being a jerk?
“say maarovis,”
Oy! what about simchos Yom tov???
Toi
Chovos Hadar in perek 9 footnote 20 says what your saying, it sems it is his own explanantion. He brings the Minchas Elazar (chelek 1 siman 36 who does not say this, rather says that diaganol is considred upright) I heard similar from R’ Reisman that really we hold like Rashi but upright doesnt have to be exactly 90 degrees (compared to ground) at a slight angle is also upright. so we put it at an angle as a “Concession” to Rabbeinu Tam.
At any rate thanks for your point. EVen if strictly speaking it isn’t a “compromise” its close enough that I think your angst about it is misplaced.
Toi
I have never heard it presented that way. It doesnt sound that way from the MEchaber “צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת זְקוּפָה” (not that its passul horizontal, but that it has to be vertical) .
Pischei Teshuva “והגר״א זצ״ל בש״ע שלו פסק כרש״י שצריכה להיות זקופה ע״ש וכן הוא בהנהגות שלו”
while your explantion makes a lot of sense, is it your own or have you seen it somewhere?
Thank you
In case you have trouble finding them here are the 2 questions
Both are here to help you correctly understand “lie of fabrication”
There is no need for you to just repeat the same misunderstood quote over and over. I got it.
I’d like to help you.A) One of the sources you provided used “The dog ate my homework” as an example of a “lie of fabrication,” In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
B) the Hopeline 8 types of lies piece has White lies as the first type.
They define it ” A white lie is often called the least serious of all lies. People tell white lies claiming to be tactful or polite. For example, it could be making up an excuse for not going to a party, or showing appreciation for an undesirable gift.”
I was invited to a coworker’s party. I told them “I can’t make it Friday night its the Jewish Sabbath” Is this a White lie?
Ugh
“What’s wrong with that statement?”
It wasn’t true. I did not lie.
If you look at the Your posts before that – you use the word “lying & liar” time after time.
Now you have a problem when s/o says that about you?!?”I have NO problem with you caling me a liar. IF I lied.
At no point did I say “don’t call me a liar it isnt nice” What I’ve been saying is “don;t call me a liar, I told th truth”
Its puzzling that you couldn’t tell that difference .Where did I call you a Liar – post the quote.”
Lots of times.
Are you switching tactics, first you argued for a week or so, that I DID lie becasue there was a “hearing”
Thne you swtichd that although I didnt lie in the typical sense of the word. you used your own defitnion of Liar” that is synonmous with “showing off”
now you are saying you didnt call me a liar.
Love it!
“Are you talking about this?
“On Dec 20’th I said her case won’t be heard by the supreme court.
You said “Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are!”Sure, among others
“If yes, by saying it won’t be heard – this Includes all Definitions, unless you specify which one!”
I don;t know what defitnions you mean.
The court does NOT hear all cases as is clearly written on UScourt dot com website. As Isaid, and as you did not know.
Just becasue you didint knwo that, and wouldnt listen to me is not my fault. Thats on you.“No one is faulting you for that.”
Lol # lines up you did! remeber here it is: “If yes, by saying it won’t be heard – this Includes all Definitions, unless you specify which one! So stop trying to Manipulate e/o, Mr. Compulsive Liar!”
But I faulted you for saying a Lie of Fabrication!
If you forgot the Definition – look up a few lines.“Same for “lie of fabrication”
“by definition, it HAS to be a lie. Otherwise it is not a Lie of fabrication, it isnt a lie at all itfi it isnt a lie.”Ok, here it is again:
So at the time of your post – it was a Lie of Fabrication!”
See the word “Lie”?!?YES! Do you?
Again:
“From Psychology.wikia.com
“Fabrication –
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”EXACTLY fabrication is a LIE…
Is it a truth?
NOIt is a lie.
Also still waiting for anwers for my 2 questions
why are you so scared to asnwer simple direct questions ?
Its good for you don;t be shy Lo habayshan lamad.
Do you want to be this uninformed forever? its bad enough to lie, but cmon don;t lie to yourself. Try to learnHealth
I thought of a new approach that might help you.
the Hopeline 8 types of lies peice has White lies as the first type.
They define it ” A white lie is often called the least serious of all lies. People tell white lies claiming to be tactful or polite. For example, it could be making up an excuse for not going to a party, or showing appreciation for an undesirable gift.”
I was invited to a coworker’s party. I told them “I can’t make it Friday night its the Jewish Sabbath” Is this a White lie?
you might say yes! Its “an excuse for not going to a party” However that of course would be wrong. not all excuses not to go to a party are automatically white lies.
To be a white lie it has to be a lie. Whci hshould be obviosu it is in the Category of “types of lies”
of course it has to be a lie.Same for “lie of fabrication”
by definition, it HAS to be a lie. Otherwise it is not a Lie of fabrication, it isnt a lie at all itfi it isnt a lie.Hope this helps
Still waiting for apology and or/ response to my question
“I don’t think other posters will either.”
Lol, there are no other psoters at this point (I hope)
“So as long that there is a correct definition – I can use it.”
You can use whatever definition you want. But you should apologize for having called me a liar, when I was using the correct definition .
On Dec 20’th I said her case won’t be heard by the supreme court.
You said “Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are!”you then went on and on about how conferences are also “hearings” .
(before you came up with “lie of fabrication” )I showed you that you were incorrect. I provided from the court’s website that says clearly “The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. …. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases”
you say you use your own defitnion, fine.
But you can’t fault me for using the Court’s definition.
so I wasn’t lying when I said there wouldn’t be a hearing. There wasn’t.At this point, you can either apologize
Or if you are still caught up on your absurd “lie of fabrication” gibberish., I’m more than happy to help you out , but you are going to have to stop ignoring my questions.“And Btw, it’s defined in many Psychological Sites and/or Texts.”
Yes I know and its copyright to name them.
spare me.(to be clear I’m not saying there is no such thing as a fabrication (that would be absurd) there are lots of tyoes of lies, there are lies of omission, lies of fabrication, lies of denial, bold faced lies. but a. these arent technical terms (to the best of my knowledge) and b. the key is they are LIES ie not true.
Interestingly you have managed to tell ALL these types on this thread)“I guess – that you can’t take a Hint!”
Lol I sure can! You see that your “defitnion makes no sense So are afraid to answer . don;t worry. I got it.
Though I’m not going to just let it go. Cmon’ man we are 249 posts into this nonsense. You think I’m just going to let go another exposure of your nonsensical lies?“You can ask direct questions on my posts!”
sure here is a direct question:
You say I lied, even though I told the truth. You mentioned (after 25 or so posts arguing about the definition of “hearing”) that you are using a special definition of lie that you call “lie of fabrication” To back up this definition , you brought used psychology wikia as a source (As if that trumps any of the numerous dictionary definitions I provided)
Under this defitnion, from the source YOU provided they have an example of a “lie of fabrication” (again, which is what you are accusing me of)
the example is “The dog ate my homework”So I’m trying to understand how you understand the example of the defitnoion you provided
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
“Not Moshol questions.”
None whatsoever.
“What part of this Definition that you don’t Understand?!?”
2 parts:
The part that would apply that definition to a conference, which is NOT a “proceeding before a court”
and the part that would have that trump The Government’s own website which says EXACTLY as I’ve been telling you .“This question?”
No this one , posed now for the 7th (!!!!) time,:
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
“From the US courts.gov, that’s talking about SCOTUS is one, ”
Our conversation was about scotus. So any otherdefinition you invent is irrelevant.
You said the conference is a court case. This was wrong.
You were sure of it, you lied you made it up. Some would say this is a “lie of Fabrication”“Why do you make me repeat myself?!”
Please don’t repeat yourself. I replied to your wrong points, again and again and again.
Would love to continue this conversation, but to help you you’ll have to answer my question.
If not, All the best.
See you next time.“I told you quite a few times – they hear every Case!”
Yes you have, but you are wrong on that. (i thought wev’e moved passed this)
The suprme court decides which cases they want to hear .From UScourts .gov
“Writs of Certiorari
Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. …. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).”The court does NOT hear al cases. they decide which cases to hear. The ones they decide to hear are granted a writ of Certiorari.
Most cases, including all related to the election are denied, menaing the court declines to hear them.I thought we covered this already.
I know I know your brother’s uncles cousin found some online source that says all cases are heard. You ca find it on Yeshiva worls posted by some guy Health unless it is from an auhtorative source . no reaosn to quote it here.
I quoted from a government run website.“Nothing wrong with making a guess….But there is something Wrong with doing a Lie of Fabrication!”
whats the difference? I don;t follow
“Do you want to make sure that every Single poster can’t take you Seriously anymore?!?”
Its faaaaar too late for that. I’m embarrassed at how long this conversation has gone on.
I’m hoping nobody is even opening this.
Its a problem I have reallyBut once we have come this far I’m curious how many more lies you can come up with.
I find it absolutely amazing.
Also, you quoted my question but haven’t replied.
I’m waiting patiently.
Ive patiently explained to you over and over how the supreme court works, what lie means , fabrication, among some many other bits of information.In return all Iv’e gotten are name calling and ignored question, oh and of course lies, lots and lots of lies.
But don’t you think I at least deserve replies to questions?
No change
it isnt really a thing
But at least follow your own defitnion
“So he’s the only one on the Supreme Court?!? There aren’t 9?!?”
Whose vote, did you wonder about? Kagan? Sotomayor?
And Roberts isn’t just a justice he is the chief. Part of his role is presiding over the conference in which they decide what cases to hear
Did you actually write both of these?!?
absolutly did.
The question is did you really write this “.*.. a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”I don’t get it if you say all those people (” a lot”) just took the same blond guess. even if yo usay the weren’t sure (as if that changes anything) whatever power the used to “realize” what was happening I used the same power
“I could go on & on”
no need
you’ve been posting mostly gibberish this entire thread.One thing that could be interesting though is to reply to my question (posed now for the 6th time:
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
*edited to remove the lie you had put in there. unlike you I don’t lie even repeating the lie you told makes me uncomfortable
“It became True later on”
so it was true. not a lie.
“It definitely fits.”
eh
“Again, it wasn’t based on any Fact at the time that you posted it!”
It was absolutly based on fact. John roberts has been around for a while. The way he thinks and feels is well known to those who follow.
Again As YOU agreed many knew how they would vote. did they all just have the same “nevuah” of course not.“You made it up, because you Guessed what the SCOTUS would do!”
It wasn’t a blind guess, see above
“So, are you going to admit that you told a “Lie of Fabrication”, ”
no because I didn’t lie AND didn’t fabricate.
you would need both to be correct.
You have neither“Manipulate e/o here?!?”
lol its just us, (and the poor mod forced to read the same thing over and over)
Also I’m not sure if you saw my question I posed 4 times
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
This is a useful exercise. Since it can help you see one of the 2 mistakes you are making in “lie of fabrication”
“No, actually I quoted from 2 psychological places, & there are more.”
Not quite as pointed out dozens of times. You quoted half , and it still doesnt quite fit .
We went through this already
Here is the defintion you supplied:
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”
Lets go throug it again to see if it fits
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, ” – NO my statement wasn’t a lie it was true.
“without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.” This might fit I was as certain as can be, but obviously not 100% in the sense that “anything is possible”
” Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact.” My statement was based on fact.
” Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”” My statement was not made up.SO even if you think, I was too certain. it STILL is not a lie of fabrication as 3/4 parts of the defitnion doesnt fit.
I’m not sure if you know how defnitions work but the entire definition has to fit.“But you’re welcome to make yourself Foolish!”
Thats been true at least 100 posts ago
Also I’m not sure why you are afraid to answer this question
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
Bitul?
yes
what if there was a full bug?
Then it wouldn’t be kosher. You probably can get a full refund for the coffee you got with a full roach in it
Yes Health I know its a not a regular definition, and is a defintion you made up (and sort of found a source that part of which kind of sounds like what you claim when taken out of context)
“because eventually they incorporate Subject Meanings into Regular Dictionaries.”
Lol!In your book this is a Lie of fabrication. Even if they do (they won’t), you don’t KNOW that they will.
So do I have it right? Did you just tell a lie of fabrication (regardless of whether it turns is true) ?Also regarding this lie of fabrication, still trying to undertsand fully
in addition to the above
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
“because even you realized there was something Wrong with your first paragraph!”
not really
If anything it proves the exact oppositeOpinion, was a bad word to use, perhaps prediction would have been better. sorry if it caused any confusion.
I had to spell out for you the difference between fact and opinion. because you have trouble with the 2. for example you think the definition of words like “lie” are subject to opinion.
Most people know when, say the weather person predicts rain tomorrow. He doesnt say “I think” its a prediction. (note : not a fabrication the two are not interchangeable even though he isnt 100% sure of what will happen) .
I’m still working on the “lie of fabrication ” stuff could you help me out
I’m trying to understand your “lie of fabrication” one of your “definitions” used “The Dog ate my homework” as an example. In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
(note: and this is important while these example should help you realize the error of your misinterpretation they are not directly analogous. Mine is more similar to “the dog will eat my homework” but that wasn’t the example, its best if we stick to the example from the source you provided)
“The Very first time you mentioned the word “moot”, is the following on page 3:”
Yes thats true.
and , as mentioned in that same comment, is WHY “They won’t [hear the case] as I’ve been trying to tell you for months. (as in fact happeend)Worth noting, you did not say Oh thats true, or oh that might happen, or “oh but that still counts as a hearing.
You did NONE of those things . You replied with “Look – I told you many times that the Goyishe Prophets predicted Trump will have a 2nd term.”
And later that same day “I have no idea what will come next, but what I know is that you are a Compulsive Liar!”“Why mention “opinion”?”
becasue you have a loose grip on realty. As late as Jan 18 you still had “no idea” who would get sworn in on Jan 20. not “well probably Biden but anything is possible” You had “No idea”and yes, obviously it was an opinion, in case you didn’t realize it I pointed it out
Though doesn’t that make it NOT a “lie of fabrication” using your wrong definition? I pointed out that it was my opinion (albeit one that I was nearly certain about).I’m trying to understand your “lie of fabrication” one of your “definitions” used “The Dog ate my homework” as an example. In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
I’ll help you out
1 – YES this is the example they mean, the guy straight out made it up and it was a lie that he fabricated
2a. – No, he didn’t tell a lie
2b. YES although theoretically possible that isn’t what happened it is a lie he fabricated, or a lie of fabrication
3a. No – It was neither a lie nor a fabrication. He had good reason to believe as he did, and it is what happened
3b. No Although it wasn’t true I don’t think it was a “lie” since it wasn’t with malicious intent (though as mentioned this point is debatable) Regardless it certainly wasn’t a fabrication. so even if it was a lie, it wasn’t fabricated
4 – No this is the truth neither a lie nor fabricatonDo you disagree with any of the above?
Next question will be with which was my statement
“There is a zero percent chance that the case will be heard. Zero ” Most similar ?“Definitions are based on the Subject.”
True
and also context“For example, Computer science has a word called Byte.”
Yes this is readily available in any dictionary. Yet mysteriously the defitnion of Lie” that includes truth can’t be found in any dictionary.
and even if there was such a definition (which again there isn’t) we would determine based on context what you meant.
If I said “I’m hungry lets go for a bīt (bite)” nobody would think I wanted more computer storage. Although yes bīt (byte) does mean computer storage (as can be seen in any dictionary no need to dig through the internet for obscure pseudorefrences which we could truncate half of the defitnion out of context) clearly in context thats not what you meant
“I’ve posted this definition already many times!”
yes and EACH time Ive explained to you why you are misunderstanding it.
My “lie of fabrication” was neither a lie nor a fabricationOne of the examples you cite used “My dog ate my homework” as an example of a “lie of fabrication”
Are you saying even if a dog really ate my homework it is a “lie of fabrication” for me to say that?“You keep writing your Nonsense.
Is it because you’re Clueless or keep on Trying to Manipulate E/O?!?”
Neither it is becasue I am a patient teacher, AND becasue Im curious to what extent you will go to rewrite realityHealth
“Definitions are based on the Subject.”
Yes that’s true
Though also context.so for example. If two friends are discussing whether a case will get heard, and one insists it will and the other says “no it will be dismissed as being moot”. first guy says “it will be heard you are a liar”
Clearly he didn’t mean “I’m not sure if it will be heard, and you are telling the truth but you are too sure of yourself”For that person to later claim oh I meant a different definition of “lie” (even if such a defitnion existed) I meant the definition that means being too sure of yourself (!!!!) clearly in context that is NOT what the meant (again even if there was such a definition which of course there isnt)
“For example, Computer science has a word called Byte.”
IT sure does and if you look it up in ANY standard dictionary , you will find it.and lets use this excellent example. If I say “I’m hungry I could go for a bīt (bite)” It would be silly for you to suggest I was asking for computer storage
Even though that IS technically a definition of bīt (byte)
context, my friend“The “Lie of Fabrication” is defined in Psychology, Not in Regular English. I’ve posted this definition already many times!”
yes you have, and as ALL the definitions noted it is a “Type of lie” NOT a type of truth
furthermore as explained It involves a “fabrication” I didn’t fabricate anything, I had good reason to believe as I did
(did you really miss all those times, you never replied to them, you are just repeating the same old nonsense)“You keep writing your Nonsense. Is it because you’re Clueless or keep on Trying to Manipulate E/O?!?”
So its neither,
but I am a patient teacher.See the problem with calling my truthful statement a “Lie of fabrication”
Is that it is NEITHER a lie NOR a fabricationIF ANY point still confuses you let me know which I’m happy to elaborate.
You know I love our conversations, so I hope you don’t take this personally but if you just
“It’s So sad that you’re so used to behavior like this.”
It is sad. But I often wonder if people can change, I wouldn’t say I’m used to it. I am honestly surprised
Sure You’ve been exposed as a liar on multiple threads in the past. But you always had some wiggle room a claim that there is a secret supreme court case out there that even lawyers can’t find or a claim that somewhere there is some secret first aid guide that would be illegal to be cited (!!!) that has your made up EMT guideline.I can’t PROVE that such a book doesn’t exist (though we both know it doesn’t)
But here I can PROVE you wrong
black and white
No wiggle roomThe definition of “liar” is clear I quoted multiple dictionaries
You quoted several sources that didn’t contradict anything I’ve said As explained at length on multiple occasionsI made a prediction
You said I was lying
My prediction came true.
Periodfor most people that would be the end “Wow you were right, I’m sorry I called you a liar”
I did not imagine a person could literally redefine “liar” to avodi the aboveYet here we are. I was wrong.
So while I agree that this discussion and interaction is quite sad.
I do find it absolutely fascinating
Thank you for participating (not being facetious, I really enjoyed your responses thank you for taking the time to write them and thanks mods for your time as well )
“Just because we’re right – Doesn’t mean that your Not a Liar of
Fabrication?!?”Literally means that.
Its in the title
LIAR of fabrication. – See if you can spot the word that excludes truth.
(BTW it wasn’t “fabrication” either since i had reason to think that. One of the definitions you gave that proved you wrong, (thank you for taking the time to provide it) used “the dog ate my homework” as an example. Say the dog was rummaging around in his knapsack chewed up some papers. The boy gets to school looks through the bag finds some half chewed spelling test and homework is missing. Teacher asks “where’s your homework?” The boy says “the dog ate my homework” This isn’t a fabrication at all. This is the likely scenario. (Now it may or may not be true, say he gets home and turns out homework was still on the kitchen table) but clearly not a “fabrication” a fabrication is “it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, ” his assumption WAS based on fact.
Now fabrication is a much harder word to understand than “lie” so if Lie is giving you so much trouble I don’t fully expect you to understand this. but it is worth pointing out. That aside for not having Lied (since I told the truth) It wasn’t a fabrication either (since I had reason to beleive as I did, it WAS based on fact)““The supreme court will dismiss the case as moot”, is saying for Certain!”
Yes becasue I was certain (as near certain as humanly possible for such a prediction)
AND was right.You called me a liar.
Even though I was right
“I realized this …”
Lol
not only didn’t you post “I think a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved!”
In fact you posted the opposite “Look – I told you many times that the Goyishe Prophets predicted Trump will have a 2nd term. IDK how it will work out, but I don’t count them out – that they aren’t telling the Truth!”and this was on Jan 18th!
you were still giving credence to goyish prophets that Trump would get a second term (starting Jan 20th 2021 clearly in context that is what was being discussed, if you claim you meant 2024 well, look up your 8 types of lies and see if you can figure out which that would be )
you didnt call them liars even though they were certian (and wrong)you also wrote on Jan 18th “I have no idea what will come next,”
whcih is fine. you don’t follow politics so closely, and/or were blinded by love for Trump that you were stil hoping ofr a miracle.
Theres no shame thereI had neither of those problems so I knew what “a lot of people realized ” and CORRECTLY (note: opposite of lie) told you what would happen
No need to do this anymore, and I surely I dont need you to teach me anything
all that’s left is for you to say
“I’m sorry I called you a liar, when you told the truth”nothing new in this last comment
Usually you try to post a new nuance or something
now you’re just repeating untruths that have already been replied to.
what gives?
and besides you are (as you often do) contradicting yourself
you say “No one, even individual Justices could know what the outcome would be.”
yet earlier you said: “.*.. a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”All I did was tell you what you later acknowledged “a lot of people realized”
(*I truncated this sentence because I didn’t want to repeat a lie, the words missing make this true statement untrue)
Health
question:
On another page
someone wrote :
“It was a prediction. You can make that prediction not come true if you so desire.”In your view that person is a “liar”, whether or not his prediction comes true.
correct?(This question belongs on this thread not that, and that thread has some normal comments still, I don’t want to ruin it
and note: in my view it isnt a “lie” in either case if true obviously it isn’t a lie by defitnion, and even if not true , its a prediction one that has reasonable grounding in reality predictions aren’t lies even if they don’t materialize. but as mentioned I suppose this is debatable )
Health
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.”
correct
but it is not
A fabrication is a truth told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.and speaking of “forgetting” to quote the whole line
The definition of fabrication (again a type of lie, NOT a type of truth) contiues … ” it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”
You seem confused as to how defitnions work. you cant just splice out one phrase and if that fits then the definition holds
Lets see how my truthful statement “The supreme court will dismiss the case as moot ” compares to the definition .Here is the entire defitnion:
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth,” – No My statement was NOT a lie
” without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. ” – Yes I wasn’t certain it would be correct, though I was close to certain, and by Jan 18 I was near certain
“Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact.” – No my statement was based on fact
” Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.” – No my statement was not a misrepresentation of the truth.So even if the sentence ” without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true” holds up, NONE of the other 3 do.