ubiquitin

Joseph
“I think objectively unambiguously offensive speech ”

against anybody?
Do you include “objectively unambiguously offensive speech” directed against Mulsims, LGBT

“There’s absolutely no heter whatsoever to throw food including apples”

source please?
(while I dont throw apples, I have on occasion thrown candy or bags of candy at chassaanim)

YW fan

Foolishness

First of all the victims families arent turning to YWN to look for sympathy so having a thread to provide condolence/sympathy doesnt make a lot of sense.

Secondly the best way to sympathize is to try to prevent it from happening again.

(Of course it isnt like this thread will have actual affect in that regard either, but at least that makes for good discussion. Ok so Freddyfish provided 😭 I provide 😭😭 thats twice as much sympathy as the OP! can I join you on your high horse?)

“Like in English, the Hebrew months are sometimes named after Greek gods ”

Not Greek, but Babylonian. The Yerushalmi in R”H says that we brought up the names after Bavel thus the only Seforim that have the current Hebrew Months names were written after the churban Bayis rishon (eg Esther, Ezra/Nechemia)
There are some names for months in Melachim Chodesh ziv (Iyar), Bul (cheshvan) Yerach haEisanim (Tishrei) but these names arent in current use.

The names of the Babylonian months were:
Nisanu, Aru, Simanu, Dumuzu, Abu, Ululu, Tisritum, Samna, Kislimu, Tebetum, Sabatu, Addaru.
It is easy to see how most of our Hebrew months’ names derive from these.
Some are from an Avodah Zarah, for example Tammuz is mentioned in Yechezkel, not as a month but as an idol.

““But a “Mass shooting” and a “Multiple shooting” are used interchangeably.”

Great so you concende “Sometimes they are;”

So why are you hacking a chainek?

Health

We werent talking about “multiple shootingS”
Although even in that case Most hits relate to Mass shootings
There are a few stories about several different shooting events occuring at a close time as in there were Multiple shootings in Chicago today. But that isnt what we are discussing (see your first post “difference between a mass shooting and a multiple shooting.”)

But a “Mass shooting” and a “Multiple shooting” are used interchangeably.
I gave you an example in my previosu post

I

““Also what is the Wilely dictionary?” A dictionary!”

Is it a secret dictionary? I cant find it on Google, nor AMazon nor Barnes and Nobles

“I looked up Mass & added Shooting.”
Ok using this method
Mass Shooting = Shooting of a large body of persons in a group
Multiple shooting = A shooting consisting of, including, or involving more than one

Though it is worth noting that definitions dont really work this way. Particulary legal terms (not that this is a legal term per se)

Say you tried this method for “man slaughter”
Man = an individual human
Slaughter = the act of killing
Thus yo umay mistankingly conclude that Manslughter -= The act of killing an individual human. Which it does not. Man slaughter as a specific definition. that althou certainly realted to ” The act of killing an individual human” that isnt the full defintion. (I will spare you the details yo ucan look it up though dont use Wlilely Dictionary Websters has an entry for Manslaughter)

At any rate the Congressional review I mentioned aerlier defines the number for a mass shooting as 4 or more
“Look up “Multiple Shooting” on Google!”
Yep thats what I did (as I said) . typed in “Define Multiple Shooting”
The all the first hits mention “mass shooting”

Health

you do realize that these arent real definitions right?
Also what is the Wilely dictionary? Ealrier you said “Webster’s” which edition? Id love to look it up
At any rate If a mass shooting is defined as “4 or more” I’m not sure why the only mas shooting you found was the Vegas one.
In recent memory the following qualify: Bronx lebanon hospital 7 shot one killed
Congressional baseball game 5 shot

(I didint google there are plenty more

“Umm, how are two siblings from the same parents of different racial stock?”

Children from the same parents are not genetically identical.

For a good start look up Meiosis on Wikipedia it comes complete with diagrams showing four gametes all with different genetic makeup stemming from one original cell

iacrisma

Yes I got that, too bad Chazal werent familiar with him

mencth
“I’m not sure how to respond about Heller. ”

Yes I know, because it disputes the narritve that you invented that isnt grounded in fact.

“I tell you it’s obvious in the context of history. You tell me that it wasn’t obvious until 2008 and Heller was decided.”

Exactly! you provided vagaries about historical context” and I provided concrete law decision

” But don’t we say yeish brerah that the supreme court upheld it was obvious since the constitution?”

Um no. Since that would mean it is ” obvious since the constitiution” taht Seperate but equal is both allowable (Plessy v Ferguson” and unallowable (Brown v Board of Ed) that limiting contributions by corporations is allowable (Mcconell V FEC) and not (Citizens nited v FEC) among many many others.

“Many pro-guns (not the idealistic lunatics) would be willing to have a discussion,”

Many isnt enough. We can discuss it until the next inevitable mass shooting. Nothign will change. We need congress to discuss it but the Evil NRA who are “idealistic lunatics” have the GOP under their thumb. and they have the nerve to call themselves pro-life.

“Isn’t taxes a similar example? The left always wants to tax more”

Um no. the left doesnt “lways want to tax more” where do you get this stuff from?

“PERSONAL Hishtadlus is required. You can not change the fate of those 59, that’s not Personal hishtadlus. Their fates were sealed, by bullets or bus, this is basic.”

hogwash.
Scenario 1
John Smith is one of the victims of the next inevitable mass shooting (if current trends continue) he will will be shot by a person with schizophrenia who has a warrant out for is arrest due to past violent crime. This person is on his way to buy a gun at a gun show in a state which doesn’t require background checks. John so desperately wants to live so today he is lobbying his congressman to close the “gun show loophole”

Scenario 2
Jane Smith (no relation to john) will get her home broken into by an intruder next week. she wants to go out and buy a gun to protect herself.

Please explain to me, why in scenario 1 john pushing for common sense legislation is a lack of bitachon but Jane’s case isnt..

mentch
“he obvious question on my philosophy that …”
The more obviosu question is why do you need guns in the first place?
ITs absurd to argue that owning guns falls under neccesary hishtadlus but trying to prevent mass shootings doesnt.
Now as to whther ths could havebeen prevented, sure thats debatable. But to invoke “Ratzon Hashem” only when it suits your argument is disingenuous.

” Stories (not in the main stream press) of using weapons to save yourself happen quite often. I know 2 people personally with such stories”

And as of sunday you know 59 stories of people that had the opposite outcome.

Mencth
” It’s only recently that the second amendment has been linked to hunting ”

Um no Heller was the first court case to define the second amendment as appling to the everyday joe.
Until then it was debated with most interpreted it as referring only to a “well regulated militia” though the supreme court never decided.

Guess what year Heller was decided ?

“. I would think this is hashkafa 101, do you disagree ?”

So I ask yo uagian, why do you need guns? Obviosuly not for self defense nor to stop a rnegade governemtn nor even for hunting. Please dont tell me you think your gun can stop the will of the RBSO?

BTW
“bechira and punishment are discussed at length”
Yes though yo u dont seem to recall the discussion. The Ramban understands that the hardening his heart gave Pharoh back his bechira and he could have chosen to let us go. The Rambam holds that the hardening was part of the onesh for inital aveiros that he CHOSE to do and could have chosen not to.

APY
“What regulation would you like added to”illegal to own”..”
Heres an easy one. Have all guns registered. (like in Israel) if a person buys more than 5, 10 15 20 (!!!!!) guns particularly in a short period it should trigger some sort of alert. We dont have to ban them neccesarily but maybe have someone take a quick looksie to see what he has planned.

“40,200 reasons to outlaw motor vehicles.”

If guns were nearly as regulated as cars I’d be fine with that.

License t o operate one
all of them are registered
All come equipped with various safety devices
Insurance required
Limits to where/ when can be used
cant be used while under influence of drugs/alchol
Doctors can have license revoked

etc etc

We dont even need all these regulations.

yekke2

Im sorry if I implied that isnt a valid view
The Rambam in Moreh fmaously disagrees. (Is this really news?)

LU
By the way in addition to the two different issues you deleinated above. Even in your first point. There are two points that you mushed together
You write your point as ““hishtadlus that goes against halacha does not help”
The 2 points are
1) does it accomplish anything ( Iassume this is what yo umena by help)
2) IF it does accomplish anything is it still forbidden to do the act. (See discussions about an averia lishma for example Lot’s daughters in Nazir, not that anyone in any case we alluded to has doen anything lishma)

This is aside from what you view as a second point as to this specific case is assur
although even within that second points there are different things to consider
1) is there any tzad issur (for example if it was already known)
2) does it remain assur if the benefits outweigh (this is different though similar to point #2 )

More to the point though the quesion really is if disagreeing with any of these is kefira

5.
“That’s a different argument.”

Says you

” There are two things that need to be discussed here. ”

none of these “Need” to be discussed. Especially when you consider my typing this information doesnt actually convey any knowledge according to your view.

“The logical progression is to first discuss and prove that it doesn’t help to do hishtadlus that is against halacha, and only once that is agreed upon does it make sense to move on to the second point. ”

Im good at discussing multiple points at one. PArticularly since I am not sure about your first point. As to whether it “doesn’t help to do hishtadlus that is against halacha” frankly Idont know. It probably depends on what yo umean by “Help” It is hard for me to accept that Kayin’s stabbing Hevel didint actually kill him and if not for Kayin to Hevel would have died at the same time with the same sufferign. not to mention the suffering Adam endured at ebing told it was his Son who killed his other son. Agian it isnt impossible. I simply dont know and it isnt a point I am to invested in thus not one I feel particularly compelled ot argue over

If yo umake two points “It isnt going to rain today and umbreallas dont keep you dry” Im not sure hwy we HAVE to settle the first before dealing with the second If both are wrong (or at least debatable) then bot hare debatable.

“but you seem to be unsure as to which one you are taking”

Because am unsure, though even if not both are at the lest debatable.

“And if you are going to say that the point of your first two statements was not to argue with the statement that “hishtadlus that goes against halacha does not help” then I don’t know what your point was,”

My point was that you were wrong. as to why I provided three reasons in my first post to you.

” since the only point in my post was to prove that fact.”

Im not sure how you proved anything.
Yo umade some strong claims and said anyone who argues is a kofer. that isnt anything near proof.
The only thing that resembles a proof is the Ani maamin, though it doesnt say what yo uclaim, and The Rambam in Chelek certainly doesnt say what you claim (We dont know who wrote the ani maamin)

LU
(In the order that you intended)
“It is kefira to think that Hashem is not All-Powerful.”

firstly I agree though
a. That isnt what you said, you said “and He is the ONLY One who makes things happen” that is not the opposite of him being “All-Powerful” it isnt kefira to maintain Hashem allows hishtadlus to have an affect whether it violates Halacha or not.
b. As mentioned even if the the Ramabm says what yo uclaim, as mentioned, not all agree

2.
” provide sources explaining what the other views are and who has them ”

ITs much too long a discussion. For a starting point read through variosu Rishonim on “Veechazak es Leiv PAroh, while the notion of bechira is not the direct subject at hand, it is related since a simple reading of your narrow definition of hishtadlus doesnt allow for bechira. Yes there are those who answer R’ Dessler in particular was a strong proponent of your position.
Besides I dont have to provide sources IF Hashem wants you to know them you will know them whether I provide them or not.

3. ” I was referring to LC’s post”

Not sure how yo ureached that “if only i could believe that evils would be dealt with by gedolim and responsible lay leaders without airing them in public” in any way disputes “Belief in Hashem means believing that He is all Powerful and that He is the ONLY One in control, and He is the ONLY One who makes things happen.”

Mencth1
” “lets ban automatic weapons” they mean “lets start with this and then we will ban this next and then this next” If liberals would come out and say “we recognize the civilians right of protection in the second amendment , we will stipulate that we need to guarantee those rights, lets compromise…”Then a lot more people would be willing to have this conversation with them . but we recognize the deceit implicit in their words.”

that is the silliest thing in the world. so you are arguing that there are p[eople who agree that peopel are needlesly dieing but it is worth it, to stick it to the liberals who arent being forthcoming about their agenda?
Perhaops you think this way, but it is haerd to imagine many that do.

”
why is the second amendment the only one we need to compromise on? why not the first also? Is all speech really good? shouldn’t we ban some speech also?”

We do ! Look up Schenck v. United States whcih was a unynous decision limiting free speech whn it would cause detah such as shouting Fire in a movie theater
Secondly. The second Amendment EXplicitly says “A well regulated Militia,” nobody intended a wild west free for all with mass shootings being a normal part of life.

You libs never get it! Do you want to decrease mass shootings here?
Stop letting in Radical Muslims!
I know the guy in Florida was born here, but Not the lady in California

Wait what?
Depending on how you count there have been 270 mass shootings in 2017
How many of thsoe were by Radical Muslims that were let in?

Even the attack you mention (back in 2015) only one of the attackers fits your description.

“One reason for private gun ownership is to allow self-defense against the government, and the government has fully automatic weapons ”

Yep thats why I have tanks grenades and grenade launchers. and OF course a nuclear arsenal. After all if the government goes rogue there is no way our small arms will stop them. (and of course the second amendment guaramntees my “right to bear arms” it doesnt say what kind)

Oh and good news Abdul who is on the no fly list bought some weapons from me thankfully ( for him at least) the senate voted down a no-buy list.

sleep tight.

And whatever you do dont discuss Gun control! It isnt the time you need to wait at least week after a mass hooting. which of course means we will never discuss it.

“You mean places such as England, France, Spain and Israel?”

Um Yes I mean all those
And also Belgium, Finland New Zealand Canada, Australia, Germany Holland. Need I go on.?

Of course that isnt to say mass shootings never happen in those countries, but not on the same level as in the US

Joseph
“Japan has a death penalty and little murder.”

I didnt mean to imply that the Death penalty increases the murder rate, just that it isnt the solution

“Is it true that the difference between Banacht and Beinacht would be a litvish vs chassidish yiddish?”

Im not sure at all. I am open to other suggestions.

ASH

“I don’t get your distinction and what are words that “contain yiddish vowels”?

Hebrew vowels (nekudos) are ַַָאָאַאֶאֵאִאׁ (ignore the
The corresponding yiddish vowels are א א ע יי י ו

The word זמן doesnt contain a yiddish vowel nor does שבת. Thus in yiddish they are written the same way,
The hebrew word נער does contain a yiddish vowel, the ע which of course makes an ־ֶ sound. thus in yidish the word נער is prounced Ner.

“The suffix thing shown that sometimes the vowels are left out when it doesn’t add. There are better examples no doubt.”
weve already provided examples like זמן שבת. In the case of נער a vowel isnt being left out, a “wrong” one is put in.

“I am making up rules based on experience not formal knowledge of grammar, but I suspect that your “yiddish vowels” rule is similarly made up. True?”

Im not sure which rule you refer to. Strictly speaking the correct spelling is נאר. I agree languages evolve and today perhaps נער is correct as well.
However your first line “So נאר is “nohr” which means only, whereas נער in the first version is clearly the Arameic word (for fool, the line means “on’t be fool”) and so would be written with an ayin.” wasnt quite right