Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CS
Another approach occured to me.
the mistake you are making is you are assuming the sentence “win a chess match in 1 move” or “a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it” or “move a stone that He cannot move” or “Divide by zero” are sensical statments. And at first glance they sound like they make sense so you assume their is a yes/no answer in which case if it is “Can Hashem…” of course you say yes.The truth though is these examples while they sound like they make sense , as they contain grammatically correct words all of which you understand. Is in fact nonsense.
Take Chomsky’s classic “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” it is a grammatically correct sentence but it has no meaning it is gibberish.
Thus the Question “Can Hashem cause colorless green ideas to sleep furiously?” is also gibberish. Its not that He cant do it. It is that there is nothing being described.
The other examples we have been discussing are equally gibberish. Winning a chess match using only one move isnt a very hard task. IT is nonsensical it essentially has no meaning.
Similarly for ” divide by zero” its not that it is really hard for our calculators to do, but for the Almechtiger, He can do it. Not at all. Dividing by zero is nonsense, the phrase is gibberish it is as meaningful as “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” or “;[-78%^”Wolf
Thanks though
“simply because some infinities are larger than others. The set of whole numbers is larger than the set of even numbers,”Only the first half is true. The set of whole numbers and even numbers are both countable infinites and are equal.
Try it:
1 – 2
2 – 4
3- 6etc …
Even numbers, odd numbers, and integers are all aleph-null and equal.However where you are correct is the set of real numbers does for m a larger infinite set known as aleph-one.
This set of real numbers cannot be put into a 1:1 correspondence with the set of integers. (see Georg Cantor’s diagonal proof)
Though there areRandomx
No reason for regret
You dont have to open this thread ever again.
Your intention was quite clear. I’m addressing, and having a nice conversation with CS who does seem confused by thisThank yo u for the source
I read it in the original
He leaves open three possibilities 1) The amount oil increased 2) the quality 3) it burned and dint burn
According to the first 2 (B”Y and Pri chadash) it isnt relevant to our discussion.
As for asking from a derush from the Rebbe. Well I dont have to accept it it isnt really a question, particularly as he points out 3 vaild approaches . I go with say the B”Y or (any of the other 1000’s of answers).Questions for you
Can Hashem move a rock He cannot move?
Can He add to infinity?
Can Hashem create a ;[-78%^ ?“does that apply to Siamese twins too, if one feels pain the other one does too”
short answer it depends
Longer answer pain is perceived/recieved by nocioreceptors in the skin and travels to spinal cord via nerves then to the brain where it is “felt” ie sensed
So if there is one brain then certainly any pain received by either bod will be felt by the one brain.
If there are two brains it depends on where the nerves travel. Generally bellow the level of where they are conjoined pain will be sensed by both. though even there rt sided pain may be percieved by one brain and left by the other.
Pain above the level of where they are conjoined like hot water on one head of a two headed set. would generally not be sensed by the other head
for example wit hone of the most famous such sets Abby and Brittany Hensel each has touch on one side (I beleive it is the ipsilateral ie same) side
CS
“I see you don’t understand my examples. …”Keen powers of observation! as I said “I dont understand your Chanuka example.” and besides as pointed out, your point (“as otherwise the miracle would only be for seven days as they had one days supply of oil”) isnt necessarily true
I read the essay you mentioned and I have absolutely no idea what it is saying. and surely you agree that it isnt a factual description as to what occurred, so Im not clear on why you assume his conclusion as to what occurred. IS correct maybe yes mayeb know. Maybe the extra day celebrates the milchama, maybe any one of the 100’s? 1000’s? reasons given to that question.
consider the rock example. I’ll waklk you through it:
when asked Can Hashem create a rock that he cant move you are forced to say yes. (He can do anything).
Ok so can he move said rock. Again yes (He can do anything)So the question really boils down to Can Hashem move a rock He cannot move?
Which is nonsense.
the answer isnt no or yes the phrase “move a rock he cannot move” is devoid of meaning although it sounds like it makes sense, so we nod along.Another example
Can He add to infinity?The answer isnt no per se. It is that the question is nonsensical. there is no such thing as “add to infinity”
Its not that He is incapable. its the the words “add to infinity” dont actually have meaningAnother example. Can Hashem create a ;[-78%^
The question is nonsense “;[-78%^” is meaningless there is no such thing. Of course if there where Hashem could create it. and of course Hashem could create a new thing and name it ;[-78%^. But as it stand today 1/9/17 that question is devoid of meaning as “;[-78%^” doesnt describe anything
CTlawyer
nice.“am I right?”
No
If it is dominant then you only need one bad copy. Father has a bad copy and good copy. Mother has2 good copies. 1/2 of possible offspring will have the bad copy from father and good from mother so they have the condition. Half will have good from both and wont have condition
It could be recessive and she is a carrier so one of their kids inherited a 2-headed gene from each parent
It could be X-linked so father has it and his only son has it (genders of offspring arent noted)
Ditto if it is Y linked (not common, but hey neither is having 2 heads)Of course spontaneous mutations are possible too. If it is recessive and already have a bad copy from father may have spontaneously mutated the second copy
“No the amos weren’t different sizes, it was doing the impossible.”
thats not impossible, that is meaningless. what did the tape measure read?
I should note I means “meaningless” to us, of course there may be a higher plane where physics doesnt apply.
but chess isnt in a higher plane. It is a game with rules. and in following the rules it is impossible to win with one move. thus “winning a chess match in 1 move” is devoid of any meaning. Unless you are palying by different rules in which case it isnt chess.
It would be like sayign can Hashem make an Aron not take up space while keeping our rules of physics. Again, of course not. Not because He lacks ability.I dont understand your Chanuka example. and besides maybe there was a nes only 7 days which is true accoridng to many of the answers given including 2 the BY gives.
I’m surprised that grown ups can still be confused by this.
While of course Hashem can do the impossible, these examples arent impossible they are meaningless.
while we say it is impossible to divide by zero, thats not because it is too difficult for mere mortals Rather its that it is meaningless. Can he create an object that is blackwhite or a circle with 4 corners (im not reffering to an optical illusion). ITs not that He cant, its that there is no such thing. By definition if it has corners it isnt a circle. This isnt a limitation on Him r”l it is a limitation on us and our language.
chess has rules if He does some other move that isnt allowed by the game that it isnt chess. So no He cant win in one move. Not because He is limited but because the game is.(Though what might prove me wrong is the Aron not taking up space, though I’m not clear on what this means. The classic example is if measure from side of Aron to each side of mishkan each measured 5 amos although the aron was 2.5 amos long and the mishkan was 10 amos. What if I take a tape measures lay it along the length of the Kodesh kedoshim it reads 10 amos. I take another put it from aron to wall it reads 5 amos are those amos different sizes? is this an illusion or is it something that is meaningless and yet Hashem can do it)
“If his taking home a box with a pie of Pizza I would think it’s for his wife and kids. This is a כבוד. Shows that he helps out at home and has some מידות.’
I think thats the problem the OP refers to. He wants to know if At 8 slices per box and 2 slices per person it is unbecoming for a ben torah to have only 2 children at home
“My point is that absence of evidence as evidence of absence will (logically) always require additional information”
I understand hy yo uused the airplane example. My point is even without that the reality is that often the absence of evidene IS evidence of absence. granted this depends on the statment in question and preexisting knowledge (evidence) regarding what I am trying to convice youbut the reality is that there is always more information required for any stament to have meaning.
If I want to convince you there is a flea in the room, in order for that statment to have any meaning you have to know what a flea is. Ditto for an elephant it isnt a special case.
The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” is only true if you wouldnt necessarily expect evidence of its existence, like seeing a flea. If you would expect evidence of its existence liek seeing an elephant then absence of evidene is in fact evidence of absence.
thus your stament “The absence of evidence not being evidence of absence (without other evidence demonstrating why evidence ought to be expected in this circumstance) is self-evidently true logical axiom. ” while true, is quite limitedI dont think we are arguing. I am just poitning out that your caveat “always require additional information, i.e. evidence of why we should expect to see the evidence that we do not see.”
I s present so often that the rule “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” isn’t much of a rule at all.beninguiman
“The absence of evidence not being evidence of absence (without other evidence demonstrating why evidence ought to be expected in this circumstance) is self-evidently true logical axiom.”I’m confused you had it right the first time with your excellent airplane example.
Though you dont need to be that complicated.
The classic example is if I say there is an elephant in the room (a literal elephant). You can quickly look around not see it and prove me wrong. Thus absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. However if say there is a flea in the room. Your not seeing it is not evidence of is absence.
Arguably the elephant being a large visible animal that cant hide in this small room is “other evidence demonstrating why evidence ought to be expected in this circumstance” but tht is often the case.You answered your own question. As long as it remains “important to our health,”
since it was a miraculous time for bearing children with sextuplets being commonplace, old age wasnt as impressive either. I think the Maharsha in Sotah says this
spurned is the opposite of what I intended. I’m sorry about that. I guess autocorrect “fixed it”
I meant to write:
It is hard to deny that a greater teshuva movement was sprung as a result of the 6 day war compared to the Holocaust.It is hard to deny that a greater teshuva movement was spurned as a result of the 6 day war comapred to the Holocaust.
IT isnt just our Generation Fire and brimstone is not always the best way to get Yidden to do teshuva see Malbim Melachim aleph 19:11 ואחרי האש ראה קול דממה דקה שהוא הנוגה הדקה ומתוכה כעין החשמל, חש ממלל, הדובר בלחש, שהוא הקול והדממה, ור”ל קול ודממה החשמל, ודקה שהוא הנוגה, אולם כפי הנגלה הראה לו כי במחנה רוח ורעש ואש אין ה’ בם רק בקול דממה, וממנו ילמדו שלוחיו ונביאיו בל יסערו סער בל ירעשו רעש ובל יבעירו אש, כמו שעשה אליהו בקנאתו לה’ צבאות שעצר את השמים ושחט את נביאי הבעל, כי ה’ ישלח את נביאיו שיבואו אליהם בקול דממה, וימשכו את העם בעבותות אהבה ובדברים רכים :
Chabbad shlucha
“I also heard something fascinating -something like the number 424 (?) is related to Moshiach, and is the number Hashem will use to fight the war of moshiach. ..Donald trumps name is gematria that number ”So is חצי מנה פלאפל . Felafel is the real tool that will bring Moshiach. Eat more felafel. Ideally Half a felafel, so you can have some to share and stay away from the clown-demon Donald Trump whose name is gematria שד לץ
Shauli
You are making an argument that there is what to be gained from such a museum.
You mention an anecdote regarding Satmar and an elmentry scholl reader. Of course there is somethign to be gained from such a reader, namely practice reading English. no one community might feel that thsi beenfit is outweighed by the harmful exposures of ” brother and his sister and their pet dog playing ball together in the park on Sunday morning ” and instead prefer not to be proficent in English (or to use another method). but this doesnt mean that there is no benefit to said reader.Without question a museum that places Events from Tanach in context has the potential to be beneficial. Ive been to the Living Torah museum and definitely found it interesting and worthwhile. now obviously that doesnt make thsi museum ok. Im not familiar with it Obviously there isnt much to gain from a museum that is “reinforcing the linkages between modern Christian belief and its roots in what they call the Old Testament.” and if there is a gain it is likely yotze secharo behefsaido.
But to just write it off because of Satmer’s approach with a Reader isnt logical
Reminds me of the story of the felow who told the Gerrer Rebbe “איך האב געהאט א חלום אז איך זאל זיין א רבי”
(I had a dream that I should be a Rebbe)
to which the Rebbe replied “ס׳איז נישט גענוג אז די חלומסט, דיין חסידים דארפען חולמען ”
(Its not enough for you to dream, your chasidim have to dream)“Until their is actual “lab grown meat” in commercial production, anyone writing an halachic analysis is writing science fiction, not Torah”
At what point does it cross over from science fiction to Torah?
Does it have to be commercially available?
what if is developed but not mass produced yet?
does it have to be in stores? cna we discuss it once its on the ruck on the way to the store?
What if I can do it but nobody else, is it Torah for me and science fiction for you?Does this rule apply to practical questions that havent happened, for example discussing throwing a get that lands between the husband and wife, is that only Torah once such a metzius has occured? IF yes why is that different?
what about Cases that will never occur like te man deamor who says so regarding Ir hanidachas?Thanks
Mentsch
A cell is not a davar chashuv nor is rennet. However even a non-davar chasuv, if it is a “maamid” Ie without it there is no final product (this may not be the best explanation I am open to others). Just like since without rennet you wouldn’t have cheese, that minute amount of rennet isnt batul, likely here too since without that original cell you wouldnt have your In vitro meat, that cell cannot be batul.
On the other hand, clearly rules of bittul dont apply to microscopic organisms, otherwise bacterium wouldnt be batul as they are beryeh a creature. Clearly on a microscopic level even a beryeh is batul perhaps a davar hamamid too (of course the rules for bitul are not necessarily equivalent and it is quite possible that while a LActobacillum acidophulus is batul althoug a beryeh a stem cell might not be batul) I’m not sure if the fact that it is deliberately added is necessarily relevant, since yogurts often advertise “live cultures” which are sometimes added and nonetheless certified kosher.
Furthermore hwen a cell divides its DNA is split between the 2 cells. So discussing which is hte “original stem cell” doesnt really make sense when there are 2 cells the “original cell” is gone and half of the DNA of each new cell came from the original cell. so the idea of bitul might not make sense at all. (I’m not sure if this makes it better or worse)
Of course all this ignores a perhaps more pertinent issue of davar habah min hatamei.
“the burger is grown from a cell of a live cow”
It doesnt have to be
“. Shechting it would defeat the purpose,”
that depends what the purpose is.
If the purpose is to have cheap meat it wouldn’t defeat the purpose (in the long run). IF the purpose was to have pareve meat and this is deemed pareve, again it wouldnt defeat the purpose. If the purpose was to minimize slaughtered cows then shechting one and creating, say, 10 cows worth of meat wouldnt defeat the purpose.M
Im not sure what you mean. It int based on any misunderstanding and it isnt a diyuk on a Gemara. (though it certainly is correct)
The Gemara in Shabbos is more detailed than תנו רבנן מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו on 23a it discusses what to do when not at home. 2 options are offered contributing with the baal habyis and relying o a wife at home
Rashi (a very recent posek?) Says regarding the beracha of Sheasa nissim העובר בשוק ורואה באחד החצרות דולק ומצאתי בשם רבינו יצחק בן יהודה שאמר משם רבינו יעקב דלא הוזקקה ברכה זו אלא למי שלא הדליק בביתו עדיין או ליושב בספינ’:Meaning someone who is on a boat (and patur from lighting as he has no dira at that time) nonethless makes this beracha.
In One of the classic teshuvos on the subject the Marsham (very recent?) says a train is different as the seat is rented for the duration of the trip and thus is his dwelling. Arguably a plane is the same, but an airport is not. Sure it is possible he is mistaken an misunderstood the Gemara. though I have never seen anyone argue and I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say ” as is clear from an even casual reading of the Rambam, the mechaber”“Even if a company calls it a “holiday party” it is still a Christmas party.”
this line is nonsensical, unless some form of mass was taking place I am not sure what defines a “Christmas party” Other than a party celebrating Christmas. IF it is a Seasons’ greeting party or a Holiday party then it isnt celebrating Christmas. The Whitehorse hosted a Chanuka party 2 weeks ago (a week before chanuka) was this a Christmas party, a chanuka PArty a holiday party , a birthday pary or nothing. If they call it a chanuka party then that is what it is. IF it isnt called a christmas party then it isnt a Christmas party. There is no halachic chalos of a shem on a party Not any party held this time of year is assur.
There are halachos about going to such parties and about socializing with Goyim in general. It isnt autmaticly assur just because it is in December, though not neccesarily muttar either.
Personally I wouldn’t go if they called it a “christmas party” out of a sense of Jewish pride as Joseph concludes“Our zeidas and bubbes were killed Al Kiddush Hashem during the Christmas “season” by these mobs of goyim coming back from Mass, ”
Wait arent we supposed to wish that happens to us?
maybe if you go to such a party and they get drunk you will get lucky.For example Rabbi Neustadt writes in his book
““it depends on the type of party the company is having. Many times, a company’s holiday party has nothing to do with the celebration of the holiday.” It may instead be an “employee appreciation party,” which happens to be held during the non-Jewish holiday season; in that case, “there is no halachic objection to attending. But if the intention of the party is to celebrate the actual non-Jewish holiday, it would be forbidden for a Jew to attend.”what the party is called very mush matters. Though it might not necessarily be muttar even if it isnt a party celebrating a specific goyish holiday
This should be common knowledge
Lighting chnauka is a chov on a home dweller. Not on someone homeless nor on an airplane .Lighting a menora at a airport boardign gate would be a beracha levatala. (aside form practical issues involved)
“it is a cell of a living animal.”
what is?
As I mentioned IF it is from a living animal, (it doesnt have to be they can (and have) used embryonic cells and of course they cfan shecht an animal and use its cells) then that cell might not be batul as arguably it is a davar hamamid. Adavar hammaid is an ingredient that is necessary for the finished product. The classic example is rennet without which you wouldnt have cheese.
On the other hand maybe a microscopic cell is less of a davar hammamid since it isnt even viible to the eye.
Though perhaps it is worse since it literally leads to every other cell being produced.If it isnt a davar hamamid youd have less of a problem. while of course chatzi shiur is assur. a cell might be batul
“Could this be applied to in vitro meat”
not necessarily. IT depends what you mean by”in vitro meat”
Usually the starting cell is a cell that allowsfor rapid proliferation like an animal embryonic stem cell. Now if this cell is fleishigs (or treif) arguably it is never batul as it is a davar hamamid. Thus it isnt quite the same as using completly artificial means or Sefer Yetzirah. OF course completly artifricla meat using chemicals in a lab with no animal derivatives would be pareve.I’m not sure why you mention ever min hachai, In vitro meat isnt a living animal
LU
this is not a dissertation there is no ned to dissect phrases. context is key. Read it in context. This is a discussion about Project Makom. A group that helps chasidim who feel that their upbringing is too restrictive leave their group. That is what they do, and this is what is being discussed.
There is another group called Footsteps which has a somewhat similar goal but makes pushes them to abandon Yidishkeit in the process, “it makes them frei”.Project MAkom, on the other hand “helps them become modox. which is not as bad as frei.”
You say “means that it is bad to be Modern Orthodox, but it is not as bad as being Frei.” Yes as IVe said, Sadigurerebbe does maintain that for someone born chassdiish it “is bad to be Modern Orthodox, but it is not as bad as being Frei.” He is abandoning his roots this isnt a good thing.
“If someone wanted to say that becoming Modern Orthodox is not as bad as becoming Frei, the correct way to phrase that would be”
Nu nu so it was worded poorly, thats why Im glad to explain it to you. Is this really the first poorly worded post yovuve come across? This is one of your stranger assertions.
“And either way, nothing was said about Chassidim. ” Um wrong, that is whom Project makom deals with, and thus whom this entire thread (see the title) is discussing.
If you never heard of Project Makom, no problem. Just ask what it is , or dont comment at all . There is no law requiring you to argue with any post particularly if you dont know what is being discussed.
“1) What is the point of a reform rabbi and beth din if everything is allowed?
If Judaism is so flexible and you do whatever you want, why have a beth din?”Maybe it is to offer guidance in non-halachic matters
Joseph
My apologies I did not mean that the Democrats are completely in line with the Torah. In fact I explicitly said the opposite ” Neither party gets their values from the Torah, and of course both have their flaws”
My mentioning ribis, Onaas mamon, hasagas Gevul werent reasons to vote Democrat, rather they served to dispute this contention ” Torah is very much fiscally conservative,” I am not sure why this view is so widespread when it is so easily disputed. Furthermore as far as the Torah goes many forms of Tzedaka are legally binding. when we had a beis din, they would force people to leave over Peah, Maaser Ani. People separate this from economics for reasons that I dont fully understand. Halacha is all encompassing and governs all aspects of our lives including economic/business issues. Thus this line “” Torah is very much fiscally conservative,” is demonstrably false. that ids what I meant.As for “Torah is … even more so, socially conservative.” That too is debatable. As mentioned no party is fully in line with the Torah. Yes, as I mentioned regarding Mishkav zachor The right wing is more in line with the Torah. and while important (it feels silly even saying that) The Torah , and more so neviim place much more of an emphasis on helping the downtrodden including Ger Yosom Almanah.
“Apparently you are throwing your lot with the R/C/OO.”
I cast my lot with the Ribono she Olam. you can throw in any label you want it wont change the Torah.
“I would think that a Yid with values taken from the Torah would generally align with the Conservative parties in his or her respective countries. Torah is very much fiscally conservative, and obviously even more so, socially conservative.”
Just the opposite.
The torah is diametrically opposed to free market capitalism. The torah opposes lending with interest, competition, how much profit can be made, as you correctly point out even basic ownershp is somewhat limited, There are rules for how long you can sell land houses etc. (Yes there are ways around these issurim, but that doesnt change the fact that the Torah assers them.As for “socaial conseratism” compare how many times it says support the Ger and almana. Yes mishkav zachar is assur. But my Torah places more of an emphasis on the former.
Neither party gets their values from the torah, and of course both have their flaws. but if you are voting based on which “would entail voting for the party that closest resembles what Hashem would want” Youd have to vote Democrat generally speaking. .
“Those who give Chanukah presents have the associated minhag of also singing Chanukah carols”
I knew the day would come when you would frown on singing chanukah songs.
Are parties still ok?
what about smiling? My goyish neighbor smiles a lot this time of yearjoseph
Im not clear on wha tour point is.If you are arguing that dating multiple teenagers, and molesting some of them is not a big deal, then whats the problem so the media reported it and it is no different than “rich very old goyim marrying very young girls.”
Your argument seems a bit circular. He was maligned with “false allegations”. well if the allegations are “respectable” and “not uncommon” what is the big deal?
At any rate, as mentioned even without these allegations. He is far from “mainstream”
akuperma
“Moore is a very typical Christian conservative charged with nothing worse than having dated teenagers when in his 30s (which is respectable in many cultures, including his own)”I’m not sure if you are serious. But just becasue it my be respectable in any cultures doesn tmake it acceptable.
And he has many views that are not “typical Christian Conservative” let alone “very typical” including his belief that Muslims shouldnt be allowed to serve in congress, that the period of slavery “was great” that private acts between consenting adults should be regulated by the federal government. You very well may share these views, and that is obviously your rigt. but they cannot be described as “typical” views.“Maybe you need an eye doc?!?”
Yep maybe
“If you have an elevated level – ask your PCP”
As IVe been saying. Im so glad we agree.and best part- no charge. ITs my Chanukah gift to you
“When I wrote Most I was referring to these… American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)”
Then you are wrong again
this is from the AACE 2017 guidline:
“Evaluate all adults 20 years of age or older for dyslipidemia every 5 years as part of a global risk assessment”
“Screen adolescents older than 16 years every 5 years or more frequently if they have ASCVD risk factors, have overweight or obesity, have other elements of the insulin resistance syndrome, or have a family history of premature ASCVD ”
Clearly they do not reccoemnd for “Everyone” nor “on a yearly basis”“That’s your opinion.”
Obviously. thats why I wrote it.From the same NIH article:
“Sixty percent felt that the information on the Internet was the “same as” or “better than” information from their doctors.””Still not at all disagreeing with anything Ive said. Yes I know people do it. Yes I know that people fel the information is better than received from doctors. (again obviously, why would they do it if they thought it was worse information)
That just doesnt make it true“That’s Not my problem!”
Certianly not. sorry if I implied otherwise“Most don’t agree with the USPSTF.”
sure particularly labcorp and pfizer. Though that doesnt mean it is whats best for the patient.“There are others that say into the 80’s.”
People say all sorts of things. But without evidence who cares
“But when s/o uses the word “Everyone”, it doesn’t mean 100%!”
Great! so not “Everyone” Im glad we agree
“NOT TRUE!
From NIH research:
“53.5% (274) stated that they used the Internet for medical information.””that in no way contradicts what I said. Just beacuse people do it doestn mean it isa good idea. Though in this case the risks are small.
ASnd in general I didnt mean to complelty ignore the internet. The internet is invaluable . Just suggesting gettign advice from a medical provider.(If we just relied on the internet I wouldn’t know to treat accident victims differently depending on how many cars were involved. That isnt to be found on the internet at all. We need dedicated health professionals like you to educate the masses)
“Slominer, hotel lobbies are not like conference rooms and ballrooms, which are rented out to large groups. They are generally intended for hotel guests to use as a common area.”
That may be true in some cities. IT isnt true in NYC where hotels generally have bars where they offer overpriced drinks to any and all who wants to pay.
I havent checked most societies guidelines
The USPSTf includes all the socities you mention in their evaluation(as an aisde for example the ACC doesnt recommend screening over age 75 so still not “everyone”)
bottom line get medical advice from your doctor not the internet
“often” is vague
but any accredited Yeshiva by AARTS (Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools) can offer a BTL that might be accepted by Law school
Most larger mainstream yeshivas are acredited. check with the Yehivos you are interested inInteresting thanks for sharing
though the USPSTF grades the evidence as insufficient
And certainly as yo u point out “Only if the first time it was elevated.” In other words not Everyone.Though even for Adults With no risk factors, there is no proven benefit in screening Males prior to age 35 and females prior to age 45.
“everyone” ?
Do you have a source for that?
LU
“Ftresi is correct. The statement: “It helps them become modox. which is not as bad as frei” does imply that it’s bad to be modox although not as bad as frei.”
no he isnt correct.
This was explained above.
“ITs saying that for a chassid to abandon his roots, being modox is not as bad as becoming frei.”“Isn’t everyone entitled to freedom of speech???”
Yes.
Everyone.
Including those who think the sign was offensive.why do you ask?
“you will never understand why he does anything, and continue to make yourselves miserable with his actions.”
Lol. Trump is the easiest understood President. Nobody has trouble understanding him.
I do have a little trouble understanding some of his supporters.Joseph
Yes but (almost?) nobody supports returning to the UN resolution. As you are probably aware all parties have acknowledged in one way or other that any future peace deal would be based on the 67′ borders and not the partition plan. This includes all US Presidents in the past decades as well as the Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians do not think they will get control over West Jerusalem. Unless Trump says something about East Jerusalem or an “undivided” Jerusalem. this is a purely symbolic move that doesn’t really change much
“Trump isnt easliy manipulated as you may think. ”
He is.
“He has the final say no matter what his daughter thinks”
Obviously. I never said otherwise
“. How long did it take him to denounce david duke or any other anti semitic tweets or the likes? Much longer than it should have.”
Exactly. Although he didn’t want to. He did
” When he decides on something he does it”
Yep like the wall
.
” Because he will be breaking with U.S tradition of not recognizing Jerusalem as Israels capitol for many years, it is a VERY historic move”
Congress recognized it in 95. Every president since has promised to move the embassy. It his historic that he is keeping his promise (though later than he saud).
The actual announcement is fluff. There was no way israel would abandon yerushalyim before and the us still won’t recognise soverigty over the entire city. Nothing of substance is changing.-How will he announce that if he is recognizing Jerusalem as Israels “UNDIVIDED” capitol?”
He won’t say undivided. (Where did yiu get that from?) If he does that in fact would be hostoric.
“And regarding status quo, Muslim world said this is a red line so either way it is a big move.”
Just because Muslims or anyone says something doesn’t make it so“Just wondering why does Trump feel so personally involved in standing up for Israel and recognizing Jerusalem?”
He is probably being pushed to do so by some of his close advisors either JEwish ones (Kushner Greenblatt) or those with close ties to Evangelicals (Pence) IT is a relativly easy win on a cmapaign promise when he has broken so many including his big one (the wall)
“After all lwhag is his connection?”
See above“And don’t tell me his daughter and son in law since especially Trump always does only what “he” wants at the end.”
Trump is the easiest to maniupulate. Tell him ho w much he will be loved and he’ll do it“But even if that were the case these are big moves even if he has Jewish family members. ”
I’m not sure hwy it is so big.
“Does he relaly like Israel that much”
Proabbaly not
” or dislike the muslim world that much?”
Partly, though that is minor compared to above.“Is this seen in the eyes of the muslim world as a reconquering so to speak of Israel?”
I doubt it though it will be seen as messing with the “status quo”Since it will be known that Jerusalem only belongs to Israel and the Jewish people?”
Im not sure why you think that. In fact he very well might mention that East Jerusalem will one day belong to the Palestinians.“Can this cause a war?”
doubtful. Though it certainly will cause an increase in violence“Can this cause issues in the United States from muslims?”
sure it can, but doubtful.“1. you protested what you consider to be an attempt to destroy Jewish Creole German so obviously you want to preserve it.”
The logic there is flawed. I dont think an attempt to destroy a language (any language) is a good thing. that does not mean I necessarily think efforts to preserve it are noble. There is room for middle ground.“2. Rabaul Creole German a.k.a. Unserdeutsch (“Our German”) is a German-based creole language that originated in Papua New Guinea. It was formed among the New Guinean children residing in a German-run orphanage in what was then German New Guinea. About 100 native speakers survive today, most of whom migrated to Australia after Papua New Guinea’s independence in 1975. (Wikipedia)”
Fascinating. Sure let them preserve it. Why not?
“3. I ask out of curiosity.”
Sure.“4. I was comparing spending time and effort on learning Jewish Creole German (a.k.a. Jargon) and Standard German.”
how much time and effort do you think it takes when a person is born and raised in said community?
“5. Yes I do put thought into my comments”.
Eh. try harder. For example your point #1 isnt logically sound as demonstrated above.“Do you?”
I try. Though I could work at better proofreading my comments