ubiquitin

*

(Thsi is a side point to a pending post, it is important point I’d like to make though I dont want it to distract from that nice summary so I’m posting it here (plus to make it easier for the mods)

In my pending post I wrote “On the other hands Students that are fluent in English* can handle Regents like Darchei produces are “to a great or significant extent” similar to Public school even if they have never played an instrument .”

A point that often gets made is that so what if they are not fluent in English they are fluent in Yiddish .We don’t give a hard time to people who, say speak Spanish. Why doesnt Yiddish count .
(leaving aside the fact that to the best of my knowledge NO school and few if any parents teach kids only Spanish, and not want the kids to speak English)

It isnt really true. Kids don’t really learn yiddish. In mys chool yiddish was taught only until 2nd grade. From then on it is learnt by osmosi, and whatever comes up in learning. Now, it is not a big deal that I did not know that Yiddish like LAshon Kodesh has masculine/feminine nouns, I grant that isn’t important. The problem though is things that don;lt coem up in leanring they have zero/no knowledge about .

As you know I am a physiscan. I speak yiddish so I get a lot of Yiddish-speaking patients. Like any New York physycian I get a lot of spanish speaking patients too.

The Yiddish speakers have no idea about basic functions of the human body. I try to explain that a patient has kidney failure. Many of them don;t know what “niren” are (unless they learnt Zevachim sure in Chumash you translate “kelayos” as “niren” but what ARE they) I try explaining what diabetes is and elevated sugar which can lead to kidney failure/dialysis. but they just dont have the vocabulary for it, not in Yiddish and not in English.
with my Spanish patients, I use an interpreter line, and we can have a meaningful conversation.

I grant this is a side issue since Its a bit weird to say that you need English education in Elementary school, in case a person gets kidney failure down the line R”l . And USUALLY if I spend enough time they get it (not always). But this is but one example, and yes there are health networks and Liasons to help guide through the medical world. Presumably the lega lworld too.
So I dont expect you to find this a convincing argument, but it is a point worth making

“According to your verbatim quotation, you are asserting that the new regulations are basically saying that as long as the private school gives the Regents, even if 100% of the students fail the exam, the school has proven public school equivalency and they’re okay, correct? Because the regulation you quoted only says they have to give it.”

you’d have to ask a lawyer .
Though i guess the oard of regents would require a certain pass rate to remain registered.
But that is just a guess

“This response of yours is saying you believe that the Yeshivas should be forced to teach sex education.”
1) wouldn’t be so bad
2) I double checked the New regulations “sex education” dos not appear anywhere. If it does and I missed it please please share where.
As you know I love learning new things

“If you noticed over the years, I’ll almost never reprimand anyone for poor English.”
good because you switched from past tense to future tense in that sentence alone .
At least I think so, but again poor education

“It clearly indicates substantially everything taught in public schools is included in the law requiring equivalency in private schools”
you keep saying this. where are you getting this from. Can you cite any line of law, interpretation even a lay source that says this
“substantially” means “to a great or significant extent.” It essentially means NOT the same.
And again. so why aren’t we celebrating the new regulations, hope they get accepted. since they remove any ambiguity. and most yeshivas are already compliant ? and they are so much less restrictive than tha which is currently “required” by law (according to you)

“Are you saying that you don’t care if the government drops this whole issue and continues to let Yeshivas give 90 minutes of math and low-level English, and nothing else? ”

I don’t love Government involvement in chinuch. It could only lead to bad things.

“If so, what points are you trying to make in your various comments on this issue?

It shifted over the course of the three pages
But in a nutshell. Pointing out that the complaints is coming from Those who were within the system who are upset that they were “shortchanged” (in their view) and that they have a point.

I initially pointed this out to Besalel who missed the main point of the story. and then to eiddeee who completely missed thsi point

ujm

“Good grief, ubiq. Your reading comprehension, indeed, is poor. Is that why you blame “The Yeshivas” for your subpar understanding?”

yes

“Taking the Regents exams will prove equivalency is the subject of the Regent exam.”
you made up this interpretation.
I quoted it verbatim
No need to add words are peshatim to it. The other paths include military school, school for the deaf You dont need to form a military school for the deaf to prove equivalancy.
Lest someone womehow think thy do. It EXPLICTLY states “will be able to demonstrate their substantial equivalency of instruction through one of the following pathways”
Just need one.
period
You’ll have to quote the line that led you to this mistaken interpretation.

“Currently there ARE NO REGULATIONS defining how a school can prove equivalency. ”
Earlier you said the opposite, “full public school equivalency. ” including ” math, English, science, music, arts or sex education”
you were wrong.
Thank you for correcting the record

“If you argue they must teach math, you’ll also have to concede that they must teach music and sex education, just as they do in public school.”
sounds confusing. If you are right, hopefully these new regulations are accepted then

” to avoid being hypocritical you’ll need to drop your objection to Satmar not teaching science or English”

i’m not objecting to Satmar.
I dont care what they do* (perhaps I need to do teshuva for this attitude) . Some parents and former students do. I could care less.

*Except that it affects us as it almost did in 2019 but now that that is over I don’t care.

And for the record If your rewritten paragraph was correct (it’s not) I’m not sure what it adds or changes

eddie
“First of all I am NOT advocating breaking the law. I all my comments are in a scenario that there is no law.”

Then your comments are in the wrong thread

“Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with upholding the law. It is about using the law to get what they want.”

I don’t know what this means.
The law requires Elementary schools teach (at least) math/English. Satmar does not. Therefore Satmar is violating the law. You cant blame parents for wanting their school to educate their cildren as required by law.
Arguing that Satmar has the right to not educate the children, is arguing that they dont have to follow the law.
I’m not sure why this is complicated.
Of course it has nothing to do with some virtuos “upholding of the law” I specifically said so.
you can argue that, I have no problem with that. Satmar is against education they want to prevent kids from getting education I completely get that. But be clear with what you are defending .

“the same with a school. You may have a legal right to register a complaint, I won’t venture an opinion on the Halachic right to report to the govt as I am not a halachic authority, but in my opinion,given the options in schooling, no moral right.”

would you say the same for suing a school that refuses to install a ramp/elevator for a child in a wheelchair? (Like you setting aside very real halachic concerns, or “suing” in beis din) does a parent have a moral right to demand their child get access to school or should they just choose another school?

UJM
Halevai

ujm

“You simply assert Satmar parents can’t sent their children to Chasan Sofer, Vien, etc without explaining why they cannot”

sorry, I thought I did with my shidusich refrence
I’ll elaborate
It is the equivelent of a Lakewood famiily sending their kid to Ramaz. Ok thats probably downplaying it a bit, since in Satmar’s view the disticntion between Satmar and Chasan Sofer is far far gretaer than Lakewood’s view of the distinction between Lakewood and Ramaz.
Their family would be the one with the kid who is off, not really one of us, somethign is wrong. etc etc

“you think that would shut up most of the critics?”
I dont care about “most of the cirtics”

Eiddee
” A parent is not entitled to have a particular school change it’s educational philosophy to accommodate them. ”

Why on earth not? If the law is on their side OF course they do. To be clear The school of course has a right o fght back .
Say a School had an edcuational philosophy that cochlear implants look weird and give the principal the creeps so no children with them can come Would it be wrong for parents to sue? I don’t think anybody would agree with that.
Schools don’t just have carte blanche to do wha tthey please (especially if they take govt funds, regardless if the parents pay taxes too) There are laws that schools need to follow. Included in that law is not discriminating against disabled. Also included in the law is providing a basic education.

“At that point the school has a right to do what they wish with that information. ”
Of course I’m not sure what you mean. Schools have rights parents have rights . Both are true
PArents have a right to complain Schools have a right to act on or ignore those complaints. IF the two rights are in conflict then it is the courts role to weigh in .

I am certainly not advocating breaking the law, ”
You literally are period. Full stop. . Nobody claims The schools were following the law. They weren’t saying that is their right, or that they are succesful in other ways are all advocating breakign the law* you say ” but I do believe this law is unfair, unrealistic, and subject to abuse. ” Ok thats fair, guess what ? There is an avenue for that.

“What about the public schools that are not up to par?”
What about them??
” are there going to be changes there too? ”
I hope so
“Please don’t tell me that they are fulfilling the basic requirements, with the kind of pass/fail ratio that they have.”
They are trying to fullil the basic requirments

” The parent body of these primarily inner city schools have been complaining for years about this, and in practice nothing is being done to change things.”
Agreed its pretty terrible

(*To be clear I’m not big on following all laws I dont really care if people break laws with no harm/victim , but you can’t fault former students/parents for complaining that the school is breakign the law and they are worse off as a result)

Eidde
“It is no different than me going into your grocery store and demanding that you have no right not to sell Cholov Stam products”

Agreed. And that’s a right you absolutely have. When Stella Dora switched to ou d many many people complained called in etc . They aren’t required to just say ok let’s buy other cookies.

All the more so when the law is on their side.
When Ben and jerries stoped selling in Israel gues what happened? If Ami were to start printing pictures of women do you think stores in williamsburg would say “ok that’s their right”. Of course it’s their right. And it’s my right to try to change it. Again,especially, if the law is on the parents side

Ujm
3 points all independent none really true. Particularly b since we ate t talking about “serious” education we ate talking about basic education at the elementary school level which they did have more of a few decades ago. So the argument thst this is “part of satmar” like the argument thst Satmar could just go to chasan sofer I just not true, and that R Moshe was “very against” bas mitzvahs is just not true

eddee

You have a nice passionate post, but it might be in the wrong thread.
tHis is about Chasidish schools.
The one comment you made about Cahsidish schools “If not, I shouldn’t send there. This includes in a chassidic community” Is not correct.
It is not like A Satmar chossid has a choice.

You can argue, too bad thats the way it is.
But you cant argue if you don’t like it don’t send there.

ymbriat

“The most obvious would be standardized test scores for secular subjects.”

I guess I misunderstood wha tyou meant by “For everyone proclaiming that Jewish education is “just fine”, ”

I thought you meant in the sense that Avira was using it, that overall Chasidim are doing fine “I don’t see why they have to change, as I’ve been saying – it works.”

The point I am making that keeps getting lost is.
Does it matter if they are successful.

The State requires schools teach math/English to elementary school
Chasidim are not.

That is the gist of the article .

The responses are manifold

One of the most common Reponses is “I don’t see why they have to change, as I’ve been saying – it works.” In other words Who needs math/English (otherwise this doesn’t work as a response)

To which I reply, that is the requirement, if you don’t like it either go to court get them to drop that requirement and/or don’t take government money (the fact that you pay taxes and are net payers) is irrelevant .

THIS is the issue that is being overlooked. I f the law requires schools teach Math/English. should schools be allowed to break the law?
And Does it matter if parents approve (this is waht I meant in my first comment, that Besalel took as a “given” it isnt a given at all, its the crux of the issue ? and how many parents do you need all parents approval? 90 %? how do we know wha t the Parents want. donl;t say they choose to send there. Its not like, well if an Aroni school doesn’t offer enough English, just choose a Zali school, that isnt how it works

“Substantial equivalency was never defined or enforced”

YEs!
And that is what some students , and parents are upset about !
EXACTLY it was the law, and not enforced

This part isnt true either
“and they are not harming any other part of klal yisroel in their ways”
Due to their inaction in 2019 they almost had all kids chinuch undermined.

“Mentioning that the majority are successful in business or blue collar work is a simple, demonstrable fact to present”

It is a fact, and it is simple but it has little to do with topic namely the lack of “basic education”

Now if you want to argue “basic education” in math/English is unimportant for the reasons you mention. . Go for it! As I said I’m not even sure I disagree. But that isn’t really the argument I’m hearing. ITs more of a distraction

“You’re just parroting all of their talking points.”
Was this directed at me?
What did I parrot from the Times?

Besalel

“This topic is also not about the parents’ right to choose to educate their children however they please.”

The thing is THAT is EXACTLY what the conversation is about.
Everything else is filler.

The NYT accurately reported that many schools do not provide even basic math/English throughout elementary school.

Most of the arguments ive seen:
The NYT are anti-Semites,
Chasidim don’t murder
its 9/11 we shouldn’t talk about other things
Non-Chasidish schools do have a decent education
Public schools are also bad.
Some Chasidim are successful

ALL those arguments (even if true) aren’t relevant to the issue at hand .
Namely that many chasidish children aren’t getting a “basic education.”

Now, you could argue that is the parents’s right.

And honestly I’m not sure where Parent’s right ends. Surely we agree that if Parents taught their children when you cross the street close your eyes and daven and make a run for it, that wouldn’t be their right “to choose to educate their children however they please.” Is teaching basic English the same,? Certainly not. I’m not sure where that line is drawn.

further complicating things is that Some Chasidish parents want the schools to teach more, they can’t just send to another school . not to mention the fact that the impetus for the scrutiny is largely from people who were affected by it, and have since tried to move on.
Of course there lack of education is holding them back, which is PRECISLCY the point. The question is is that a right parents have?

Its not an easy question to answer. And there probably is no perfect answer

AAQ

“So then why people here post exaggerated statements?”

A question I’ve had for a long time. In fact those discussions are the one I find most fascinating. Ive had ridiculously long conversations (even embarrassingly long) where another poster clearly made something up, and when called out on it just doubled down
I was pretty sure I was right, but others spoke with such certainty that I hedged a bit. (I since verified that the OP is completely wrong)

“I wonder whether anonymity here relaxes moral norms,”

I think that plays a role, but in we have’ all seen even non-anonymous people make statements/predictions that are blatantly false. Chazal say Chazaka people don’t lie if they will be found out, it doesn’t seem to be true anymore. either they are hoping people won’t follow up, or if they do others won’t be interested and will have moved on

UJM

So to be clear, you asked regarding YU ““Don’t they love people who are struggling with the yetzer hora to commit adultery?””
Do you?

Aaq

“Maybe difference is between grad school and undergrad yeshiva”

Exactly right, see my first comment in this thread

UJM

“how do Orthodox Yidden teach in Conservative Jewish schools?”
you’d need to ask them

“Also, could you imagine RIETS being under the umbrella of the Mennonites?”

no, why?

” And the Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS saying we protested other Mennonite subsidiaries worshipping getshkes but we have no control over what they do?”

I don’t really understand, why would that be a problem?

“If not, why would anyone think being under the YU umbrella, with YU condoning and funding many aspects of outright kefira, any different?”

so its not different. nu nu

Damoshe wrote “Yeshiva University decided the time was right to ask for the legal right to block the club”

I don’t think this is correct. In fact the reverse is true, the current case was begun by the group suing YU.

In fact I think his entie post has it wrong “Let’s daven that their request is granted, and the club gets shut down permanently.” We can daven for that but I don’t think that is waht the lawsuit is about. YU is not fighting “the club.” that has been there that was “long opposed”

The Roshei Yeshiva can still be wrong for staying at RIETs when it umbrella organization supported such clubs, I never commented one way or the other on that. It is hard to imagine RIETS as a subsidiary of Menonite University, though if it were I wouldn’t have a problem if other subsidiaries of the university bowed to getchkes. If you do you do you don’t need to like it

“Ner Israel in Baltimore gives a highly regarded BTL ”

I don;t know what “highly regarded BTL ” means

It is a BTL, it is accepted. Nobody in Graduate school, nor any employer looks at NIRC BTL and says “Wow that is very impressive”
sure if you do well on LSAT, MCAT or otherwise have a good resume, they will overlook the BTL, but to say it is “highly regarded” is a stretch

(full disclosure I have a BTL from NIRC)

UJM

“Kastner never told his fellow Jews and instead let Eichmann round them up without them resisting or trying to run away”

Were all those who opposed resistance or running away wrong? (at least once the reality of Auschwitz et al was known?)

Akuperma

“Ambiguity as to whether a crime even occurred would result in the search warrant be thrown out ”

Again, you don’t know what crime the warrant alleges (correct me if I’m wrong) I sure don’t . That is all I am saying.

You can certainly argue, as others have, that you suspect (hope?) the justice department did a sloppy job that they don’t actually have any “probable cause” or that they otherwise messed up in some way, or even that the alleged crime is so petty to make the whole thing blatantly partisan. I get that.
But at this point all you have is a suspicion (hope?) nothing more. You don’t know that the fourth amendment was violated. You just hope it was.

Again correct me if I am wrong

Menachem
“If this would be done in Russia against a Putin rival, there would be a global uproar.”

If what was done?

Do you know what the search warrant contains? Very few do.
We will find out soon enough, if it is false or even for something true but inconsequential then yes you’d be right. but if it is for something more serious then I’t imagine the part that has been professing to support “law and order” “back the blue” would be the most supportive of the FBI

ujm
these:
“The 6 days of creation were in fact 24 hours. How could they not be? Aren’t days 24 hours now? So when did this change? Where does it indicate in the slightest that the first Sunday after creation (or the first Shabbos?) was suddenly shorter than previous days?”

The when did it change question,
In general this whole approach doesn’t appeal to me, it helps one “issue” and ignores others for example the order of creation, So you get all twisted into a pretzel for what exactly?

years ago I heard some fellow explain how the days are really billion years or whatever then when he was questioned on the long lifespans, he explained 700 years was really 70 or something like that.
So these days are abnormally long those years are abnormally quick the whole thing is odd to me.

But if some people gain from it, besder, I don’t understand why other people get all bent out of shape. This leading to not keeping Shabbos, concern is completely absurd

We keep Shabbos because Hashem told us to. Why? To remind us of brias haolam which we are told occurred in 7 days. does matter as far as observance if they were “really” 7 days or 7 billion years? No of course not

Similarly We keep Sukkos because Hashem told us to. Why? To remind us of Sukkos we were in in the midbar does matter as far as observance if they were real sukkos or the ananei hakovod ? No of course not

Lol Mennachem

Your question is absurd and story made me laugh at loud

I genuinly don;lt understand the conncection why does the length of Shabbos have to mirror the length of the days of brias haolam.

Hashem said rest every seventh day, so we do. period. the Why is interesting but it doesnt affect the practice

In order to celebrate Pesach, do you have to believe Hashem walked around Mitzrayim and physically jumped over (the literal definition) every house r”l ?

Are you saying the Rambam didn’t avoid Gid Hanasha because he did not believe Yaakov’s thigh was literally struck (he writes it was a dream, sure the Ramban argues) After all in your view if something didn’t literally happen it makes no sense.

According to the Reb Eliezer (the Tanna,) that Basukos hoshvti are not literal Sukkos, does that mean he holds we dont need to sit in a Sukkah on Sukkos?

I’m not big into this idea that days are million years, but your problem with it is silly .

There are several examples where we commemorate something not literal* (Ribono shel olam passing over us, Anneini Hakovod as Sukkos) in a literal physical way. So it is possible Hashem created the world in 6 “days” lasting billlions of years that we commemorate every 7th day in the literal sense. IT isn’t even a tiny stretch to say this

*Note please don’t confuse “not literal” for fake ch”v. Hashem’s Zeroa Netuah is not literal (to say it is is kefira) nonetheless it is real., Similarly Hashem doesn’t literally pass over a house, nonetheless He did. A Ananei hakovod is not literally a sukkah (obviously) it is still real thing Hashem protected us with

“so why does not the enormous gravitational pull of the sun dislodge the earth from being stationary in the center?”

Because the momentum and velocity pull it away. The sun keeps the earth in orbit.

IF not fur the sun the earth would be moving through space in a straight line, the sun pulls the earth towards it. The result of the two forces is Earth moving around the sun.

“Why talk hypothetical minutes?”

Because it is a useful way t o make my point .

We’ve come so far
do you mind answering the question

Would your view on guns change at all if we uncovered those imaginary minutes ?

“I am not insisting on “no limits” position”

shlom al yisroel!

“unfortunately everything is viewed as partisan, so even you’ll propose “reasonable” measures, the other side will see it as an attack and fight back.”

YES! NAILED it!

The word you are looking for that describes a group that opposes “reasonable” measures is unreasonable

The reason I brought up Heller, was just to show that the constitution argument is fluff. I understand why people like guns, I get it completely.

Thought experiment:

Say we find the minutes as the the 2nd amendment was written:

“Ok so we agree that states need a milita”
“Yes, very important”
“What if someone thinks it applies to individuals”
“Easy lets write “A milita being necessary…” Like this nobody could possibly think it applied to non-militia members”
“Ok but still a bit risky, we can’t have a free for all militia with who knows who has weapons”
“Ok lets make sure it is “regulated””
“I don’t know guns can be dangerous, I’m not sure a little regulation is enough”
“Ok lets make it “well regulated””
“Ok so it is settled the amendment protects a milita only, not individuals”
“Yes though make sure to write “well regulated militia””
[all in unison] ” Agreed! Huzzah”
“On lets make sure we all sign these minutes and clip it to the bill of rights that way it will never get lost and can be consulted on in the future should some group wonders why we included that phrase”

Would your view on guns change at all?

My guess is no (correct me if I’m wrong)
You would argue that even if not in the constitution it is an American tradition, people have the right to defend themselves, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun… (again correct me if I’m wrong)

THAT is my point. I’m not trying to convince you that more gun control is necessary. I’m trying to show that the reason those who support guns do so has nothing to do with the constitution, without the constituion you’d have the same view. So forget the fluff arguments and stick to real ones

AAQ

“yes,,,,”
That in no way answered my question.

My question to Mencth was as follows:

One of his arguments why banning guns was a bad idea, is that people won’t listen.
My question was, Is there any other law that he opposes passing becasue people won’t listen? for example would he oppose banning abortion becasue people won’t listen (obviously not all people will)
The words you typed do not (as far as I understand) answer this

“even less than 100 years ago, they were occupied”
as mentioned that was in spite of an army more armed than even the most liberal and expansive interpretation of the second amendment would allow.

“So, then, one should discuss statistics of those and what are possible reasons behind it”
Sure! ITs becasue we have more guns.
More guns = more murder
This is obvious and is born out by data. ITs true fo states its true for countires (developed countries anyway)
see for example Harvard Injury Control Research Center > Firearm research > Homicide for a bunch of studies

“I was just giving you etza tova to achieve your mental balance without fighting a (hopefully) impossible fight.”

not to worry.
balanced quite fine.
I enjoy these discussions its just hock for hock sake

I find it funny when Someone argues that he opposes a tyrannical government, yet if you don’t like his ideas you should leave.
You (almost) can’t make this up

It doesn’t get me upset, just the opposite its amusing

“If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns. ”

Seriously though
THAT is precisely my point

Nobody would seriously argue that there is no individual who benefited from having a gun. The question is do we look at the individual or the collective

If you look at antiseatbelt magazine (if there was such a thing ) they would highlight a few people whose lives were saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt.
We ignore those few at look at the collective ALL must wear a seatbelt (in most states) because overall we all benefit. sure an individual might not.

THIS is the point of disagreement

The Constitution argument is fluff, for arguments sake lets say it said “an unregulated gun toting populace being fun, the right of each individual to bear any arm wherever and whenever he wants shall not be infringed ”
That still wouldnt answer the OP here was his question “I am genuinely confused by Americans who have tried to explain why gun control is not the correct response to hundreds of mass shootings a year”
Answering oh the constition,… doesn’t address his question, so change it. And if not why not?

Your reason is twofold
1) The cat is out of the bag, there are two many guns
2) Some indiviudals benefited

#2 Is where we disagree (as I said in my first post)
#1 Might be another point of disagreement, I’m not yet sure if it is a real argument or not