Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Reb Yid. It shouldnt but as of today 2015 It absoultly would
(which is why the lie was started int he first place)
More than a terrible midah.
It makes the speaker look foolish and detracts from any real issues.
I’ve heard this nonsense about feet on table or being in the oval office without jacket /tie. It is so easy to refute with a simple google image search yet I hear it repeated over and over.
Sorry Im late to the party. A few points in response to VM’s reopening what should be a forgotten topic.
“I possess literally no objective or accurate information about vaccines.”
– Perhaps the only accurate statement in the post.
“The vaccine controversy is real and it is the fault of the medical establishment as much as it is the fault of a few flawed studies.”
– The controversy is contrived it is the result of one flawed study and a few evil celebrities (!) who endorse it.
“Because of the stakes involved in public health, nobody ever gives a straight answer to questions about vaccinations.”
– Straight answers are given repeatedly there have been studies (plural) proving the safety and efficacy of vaccines. (do a pub med search)yet the appeal of celebrities is hard top overcome.
“Moreover, you can believe that the doctors, the government and big pharma are acting totally l’sheim shamayim (they are not, BTW) and still believe they are lying. Their job is to support the public health. If vaccines caused any ill effects, their job would be to weigh the public benefit against the public costs, and make a decision whether to be open about the costs if it may result in fewer vaccinations.”
– This is true. thats why your it comes with possible side effects noted.
“But an individual should care about the individual costs and make a decision based on his or her personal circumstances.”
-Debatable, as a member of society individuals should make decisions based on society.
Here are some examples that support what I wrote above:
“1. We are nagged endlessly every year to get the flu shot. Few doctors will tell you the objective fact that the flu shot is directed only at a few strains of the flu, and that it has side effects.”
– I allways mention POSSIBLE side effects, Ive always been told of POSIBLE side effects.
“They will tell you that the flu kills 35-50000 Americans every year. Assume the number itself is true (it isn’t); they don’t tell you that the overwhelming majority of the victims are elderly or infants,”
– It is ture that the flu kills 3500 – 50000 Americans each year. While majority are infants and elderly (i.e >65). surprise doctors care for them too So I’m not quite sure what your point is. Furthermore the obese, those with Lung dieases (Astma/COPD) are at risk as well. Never mind the fact that hospitalization is what doctors want to avoid as well. As many as 200,000 are hospitalized annually for complications related to the flu. This year in particular has been a bad year and among the deceased I know of are a couple (not elderly they were in late 50’s) who caught a particularly nasty strain of flu (H3) complicated by CA-MRSA and died.
” and that the flu vaccine is only designed l’chat’chila to address about 50% of anticipated flu cases in the first place.”
– The developers predict strains to inoculate against the efficacy is variable. This year has been particularly ineffective.
“So you’re taking a vaccine with a high chance of side effects, to protect against a disease that would be incredibly unlikely to harm you at all, and the protection is only 50% better!”
– Should read” So you’re taking a vaccine with a low chance of mild side effects, to protect against a disease that while incredibly unlikely to harm most healthy people, has a high chance of harming you and even higher chance of harming in catastrophic ways those you may love including elderly/infants and those with predisposing conditions, and the protection is often as high as 50% better and by some estimates as much as 90%!!!
“NONE of what I wrote is remotely controversial.”
– Because it isnt factual.
“It happens because ten thousand people getting minor side effects is nothing to the government, while 20 lives of elderly people and infants that are saved is something to them.”
– Ummm isnt it something to all?
” So forgive me if I am skeptical generally of the government’s claims about vaccines.”
– Forgiven! Dont trust the government. dont trust me. Do a pubmed search yourself. Or Find someone who is knowledgeable on the subject ask him to explain the literature to you. Make sure s/he explains terms such as absolute and relative risk reduction and number needed to treat. Then see if you can visit your local ICU and note how many patients have Droplet precaution notices on the doors to their room. Then you will be truly informed on the subject.
I am not as well versed regarding varicella and HPV So those can wait for now.
What should disturb you is that your teacher repeated a silly canard. a simple google search will reveal pictures of other presidents including Ford and Bush (jr) with their feet up in the oval office.
That being said it is perfectly acceptable to bash a President, that is one of the great things about a Democracy The PResdient serves you. But only when called for, not for silliness especially when it isnt true (and easily disproved)
Actually froggie. hitting is assur becasue it is a lav in the Torah of Baal Tosif and as codified by the Rambam. If not for the pasuk forbidding it it would be allowed. (Of course there is also Veahavta lereicha etc…) But there is in fact a passuk in the torah and halacha in shua forbidding hitting.
Things arent assur becasue they seem assur they are assur if the Torah/Chazal/Poskim tell us it is assur. if you dont know if it is assur there is noting wrong with asking whether it is of more knowledgable posters or of your Rav.
DY
Its not the same as cropping because with cropping people it is apparent that somebody may have been to the side. However depicting a sea of male world leaders gives the impression either that there are no female world leaders (Which some say is their goal, Im not sure) or that female world leaders werent there. Both of these are sheker.
(As it is It is quite striking that in the sea of world leaders they only had to remove 3 (!) women).
However I do think I may be coming around to your point of view. There is no question that It wouldve been better to print another picture (as you agreed). As far as falsehood, maybe you have a point I am not sure what the avergae Hamavaser reader thinks when he glances at the picture. Does s/he think there are no female world leaders or that they werent present? That is what I assumed at first glance, but on further reflection maybe you are right. MAybe they realize that they are looking at an edited picture (which begs the question why pictures are needed at all) in which case the sheker would be mitigated somewhat. (not completly though as it still doesnt smell right and there is no question some readers will view it as an honest depiction)
It is actually the Artscroll anaology that got me thinking. Are they dishonest? Depends what they are percieved/billed as If they are depicted/percieved as true biographies by and large they are dishonest, but I think most people reading them know fully well that they are more haigrophic then historic in which case they do a great job depicting haigrophy,
As you said “Any frum publication by definition sometimes has a standard higher than telling it as it is or was (by omission), because in many cases it is assur to do so (l”h, bizayon). Since that is the case, though, an omission is not a misrepresentation, because it is the expectation, according to the context. “
This goes for both Hamevaser and Artscroll assuming that the readership is aware of the expected misrepresentation.
DY
I mostly agree with your last post. My only point of contention is regarding “Editing a picture is not falsehood per se. It depends on whether the idea being represented is false.” It depends on what the idea being represented is. In this case the idea being represented is a world unity rally led by world leaders. Pictures in a newspaper are often used to illustrate a story. (After all a picture is worth a thousand words. Many people glance at the picture and skip the article. A headline serves the same purpose. Thus even if the story mentions Merkel being there if the Picture is edited it still conveys a dishonest message. There is a frum website that often has dishonest headlines to pieces for example (not an actual example but they have done very similar headlines) They’ll have a headline Obama says “Attackers are justified” Then in the course of the article they say the full quote “anybody who says the ATTACKERS ARE JUSTIFIED is a terrible person” Obviously this admitedly extreme case would be falsehood. It isnt enough that the story is true. The headline, which to a certain extent summarizes the story has to convey truth as well.
The wedding question is even less of a sheker than the others because the pictures arent meant to document what occured. IT is more of a souviner or memento. Nobody looks at wedding pictures and says “Remember how we all stood with our backs to a backdrop” If a person edited in some Rosh Yeshiva to show how chashuv he is that so and so attended then it would be sheker, but I think we agree on this that it is all about context.
Regarding edited Gedolim pictures, that is trickier because it depends on the point of the book, Obviously Artscroll “biographies” serve a different purpose than biographies as generally percieved, and arent meant to give an exact history. In which case the context is different regarding editing in yarmulka (you didnt address Tznius) though In a general biography it would be dishonest to edit pictures.
So the discussion is really over what is the context that the picture appeared in the paper. To me it seems it is meant to depict a historical event as it occurred and as further described in the accompanying article.
DY, of course thats how it started but the conversation has shifted to side issues that are completely irrelevant to the main issue, case in point: metzitza.
“You tried the falsehood argument before. It’s wrong.”
Um no, editing a picture to depict events that they didnt happen is false. You can argue that tznius trumps falsehood but it is sheker.
“So you tried the faltche frumkeit argument, which was also wrong. “
This wasn’t an argument on the main issue. (See told you, the main issue got overlooked) This is regarding the side issue of Not printing pictures of women at all. Which though based on faltche frumkeit (granted a notion I cannot prove, it is purely based on persoinal experience) is without question their right, and we shouldn’t care what anybody says, bizarre as the policy end up being (Times of Israel has pictures from children’s books depicting “families” in the park led by 2 men and weddings with only men under the chupa.)
See how the the two issues have become conflated, Since falche frumkeit doesnt address the main issue which is EDITING pictures.
“They edited out women from a picture because they have a policy not to print pictures of women. They should have either not published it, or at the least, possibly, had a caption reading “edited as per editorial policy not to publish pictures of females”, to avoid the predictable criticism. They didn’t. That’s all.”
Completely agreed! This is the main issue. and as I said elsewhere we fundamentally agree. Our only discussion is are they wrong for not doing what you agree they should have done. (And the related point if cutting people out of pictures is sheker.)
Side question: There are some cases of Gedolim pictures without Yarmulkas eg for passport or with wives/dauthers not dressed tznius by today’s standards. OCcasionaly these pictures are edited to make them more in line with the current zeitgeist.
Is this falsheood?
Note: I am not asking whether it is right. YUou can maintain that it is proper to do since it’s disrespectful.
I am only asking if an edited picture is Emes or Sheker?
In the course of this conversation their is something that is being overlooked.
If it is halacha, minhag or even a legitimate chumra. I dont think we should care about what Others think. This goes for milah, metzitza, and not printing pictures of women. (of course there is a (relevant) side discussion whether some of these are legitamte hakpadahs However this shouldnt detract from the main issue at hand)
Hamevaser never prints pictures of women, Haaretz didnt have a story last month that there were no women. That isnt the issue. I dont know if Z-Dad agrees, but it should go without saying that any paper has every right to come out with any fardreita chumra they want they can avoid pictures of women, reshaim, all goyim, all animals, treif animals, fruits or apples
(BTW Trust 789, When I see pictures of apples in frum newspapers, I cringe. Ditto, frum websites. It isn’t “faltche frumkeit”. I don’t cringe for myself, since I love apples).
That is not what happened in this instance. They could have easily avoided pictures of women. Ami, Mishpacha Yated and Hamodia all managed to report on the story without pictures of women and without raising the world’s ire. The literal editing women out of history is what the issue at hand is
DY
“Ubiquitin: how do you define “faltche frumkeit”, anything further to the right than your hashkafos? Or maybe only if it’s a certain degree further to the right?”
Neither! It is when it is based on silliness. And more so when it is done as a way to show how frum you are. None of these publishers really beleive their is something wrong with pictures of women, it is just an act to show how “frum” they are. That is what I call Faltche
Flatbusher: “Isn’t that the underlying reason why women’s pictures are not published in frum publications?”
No! The underlying reason is it serves as a shtemple of faltche frumkeit. It has become the norm that charedi publications dont have pictures of women, therefore to be considered a Torah-True TM publication you cant have pictures of women. It has zero to do with tznius as DY points out ” the type of picture a frum publication would print is highly unlikely to be an issue.” And in Merkel’s case it is completely unlikely.
This is why people get upset over this. Of course they can exclude women or anybody they deem objectionable in a any way. That isnt the real issue. However when it becomes an international story, if it was based on halacha, who cares what the international community says! But when it is based on faltche frumkeit, it is upsetting
DY
Without question the motive here is purely to stir up a story. I cant prove it but of this I am 100% certain. I am not saying those making a tumul are glorious defenders of human rights. Far from it. Nonthless in this case they have a point. I’m not sure why intended audience is relavent, when Iran hosts a Holocaust cartoon contest or deniers confrence we are not the intended audience, yet we are (I know I am, I assume you too) rightly offended.
Bottom line is fundamnetally we are in agreement. They made a mistake in running that particular picture.
“”Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment and then offend by publishing a photo of this rebbetzin and not that one.”
Refraining from publishing photos of ladies is a halbe tzara (Ok its not a tzara at all, just faltsche frumkeit (in most cases)) The issue at hand is editing pictures.
Lior
I dont know what her thoughts would have been but according to the book it has the support of her family
Hamevaser has millions of copies in distribution? Wow!
The book is more prominent and is meant to last a while to be reread over and over.
The tachlis of A newspaper printiing a picture or Rebbetzin KAnievsky would be identical to A biography.
As far as the level Torah audience, I never farhered nor took a survey of hamevaser’s readership vs Artscrol biography’s So I simply dont know. Though Im not sure how that factors in. Does a higher Torah-level audience make you more or less susceptible to pictures?
chabura is certainly an issur of bal tosif.
However an issur to damage property is less clear
Lior
I’m not sure if your question was addressed to me but, I demanded no such ting.
I do have a question for you though. Do you think Rebetzen Kanievsky is opposed to the Artscroll Biography of her? (It is full of her picture)
DY regarding point 1I copied from the other post on this subject
As far as disrespect. This by definition is subjective, and not (solely) dependent on intent. If you sit down when say Obama enters the room becuase your legs are tired, you may not have meant to be disrespecful but you can bet it will be perceived that way. Editing women out of history (in this case literally) even without intent to be disrespectful is understandably perceived tha way. and silly platitude type answers (Kol Kevod Bas melech pnima etc), may work for some that are datan kalos but dont mitigate the (even if only) percieved disrespect.
and point #2. It certainly is easier to avoid pictures of women always or most of the time. Than to photoshop pictures. I’m not sure if on this point you are arguing for the sake of arguing? It is easier to remove the women than not to print them?
Golfer neither point is being overlooked
Your first point is wrong for several reasons first of all the split with more vs left doesn’t hold up. Since a. it is a false dichotomy less educated (in a secular sense) people tend to be more religious so by your metric do people feel the need to be tolerant of them? and b. It is all relative people who are less fortunate are more unfortunate so this less vs more split doesn’t quite hold up. More to the point if something is viewed as intolerant the call for tolerance doesn’t hold water. We aren’t tolerant of antisemites, racists or sexists, nor should we be. If (as some believe) the women were removed out of intolerance for women, calling those who criticse the intolerance, intolerant doesn’t hold much water.
Your second point “Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment” is wrong too. There is no question it is easier to look at the picture determine there is nothing wrong with and print it than to sit there and edit out the women. Spare me nonsense about coming up with standards. This one was straight forward. If it is uncertain fine, edit it. OR better yet use a different picture which is also easier than editing!
DY
Ive been busy over the weekend but thanks for replying to my question
“No, I would not have hed this picture published. It might not have been fraudulent or illegal or disrespectful, but it was still not a good idea.”
so we agree as does Z-dad and probably most people here That it was not a good idea!
As far as fraudulent, illegal, and disrespectfull:
Editing a picture to depict events as they didnt happen is certainly fraudulent. You can argue as some did that “tznius” is more importnat than Emes. And that may be true. We know sholom bayis is sometimes more important than emes, Telling the truth is not the be all end all. Obviously a paper cant print Lashan Hara even if it is emes. By definition to a frum paper telling thwe truth CANNOT be their number one prioity, however that doesnt make doctored pictures truthful.
As far as the legality, I’m not sure,I doubt it is illegal.
As far as disrespect. This by definition is subjective, and not (solely) dependent on intent. If you sit down when say Obama enters the room becuase your legs are tired, you may not have meant to be disrespecful but you can bet it will be percieved that way. Editing women out of history (in this case literally) even without intent to be disrespecful is understandably percieved tha way. and silly platitude type answers (Kol Kevod Bas melech pnima etc), may work for some that are datan kalos but dont mitigate the (even if only) percieved disrespect.
Answer is simple. It is becasue to be a charedi paper you cant have pictures of women, this is the new norm, so having pictures would make your publication less frum.
As to how it got this way read any of several sociological works on the right ward shift of Orthodoxy
DY
“When someone on the CR claims he’s a goose farmer from Alaska, is that a falsehood?…If someone presents himself as both a talmid of Rav Yisroel Belsky and Rav Menashe Klein for illustrative purposes, is that a lie?”
It depends on context, for illustrative purposes it isnt a lie. If the person said “I am a close talmid of R’ Belsky and he told me there is no lifnei iver to ask others to carry”
That WOULD be a lie, (I assume you agree, since it is more than just illustrative)
In a newspaper, by definition the context is depicting events on the news pages, This may not be true for an entire paper not in the funny pages, nor in ads which we all know may contain hyporbole, but the news pages are presented as fact. Pictures are not used for “illustrative purpooses” but to show events. Sometimes they are merely illustrative and an honest outlet would label it as such.
I have a question for you. Do you think they should have used a different picture?
DY evenif it isnt direspect. How isnt if falsehood? Editing a picture without a caption admting it is edited seems false to me.
When mods edit a post they make clear that it is edited.
Why do you say the papers arent guilty of falsehood?
DY I dint read your marei mekomos yet but as to your points:
1) I think they are the same but can hear more of a reason when you are essentially appointing a shliach to do somehting you view as an aveira even if him doing it is not an averia for the doer
2) Regarding cs not only is it conveivable I know some people (chasidim) who hold chalav stam treif
Mod-42
2 points I’d like to clarify. My discussion with DY is not about asking someone to do somehting for you, rather limited to “lifnei iver” by telling him in, Lior’s example, say where to find Parsha sheets.
Secondly I’m curious does your Rav hold that ungvarer chasidim (followers of R” Menashe Klien) are allowed to carry i.e not for you? I have heard from R’ Belsky on several occasions that they may not, in which case of course its lifnei iver to direct them to Parsha sheets.
DY I have a question for you:
suppose talmid B”Sh asks a talmid B”H “Hi I am a talmid B”Sh can I marry a tzaros bitto”
what is the talmid B”H to answer?
To me it seems obvious he is to say “Yes as a Talmid B”Sh you are allowed to” (of course he can add but we hold he’s wrong, I’d play it safe etc etc)
Now, is there a greaer lifnei iver than telling someone they are allowed to do an issur!
Unless of course you maintain that talmid B”H MUST say “No you may not, though your Rebbi allows it, he is wrong and it is absolutly assur”
What do you say the talmid B”H should answer?
DY, you say “how can you assist someone do something assur yet not be oiver on lifnei iver?”
Not quite when Talmid B”H helps talmid B”Sh with tzaras bito he is helping him to something muttar! The way I see it even the acording to Talmid B”H, the talmid B”Sh is in fact allowed to marry tzaros bitto. If it was assur it WOULD be lifnei issur.
(As far as the paradox of not being lifnei iver for the machshi to help do somehing assur for the machshei to do himself, there are many such examples, nazir helping regular person drink wine, kohein helping yisroel be metameh. In ALL these cases there is no issur helping the nichshol do something muttar.)
I agree with your summary but with the caveat that I’m only talking about cases where the machshi holds the nichsol is allowed to do “it” (C”S/ carry with Eruv/ marry tzaros bitto) on his own, thus making it mutar for the nichshol, even in the machshi’s opinion.
Working on it
I dont know. I’m confused as to the message I know it is easy spin.
You dont seem to be saying the same as oomis though
in your view it shows “ambivalence toward the situation” I agree. Certianly a bad message.
Oomis says it shows in an “appalingly obvious” way where the administartion’s true alleigance lies. Unless she ment an allegiance with ambivoulsness you arent saying the same thing.
Which hardly paints a “clear picture” (in OP’s words) of the administration’s sentiment
would a Beis Hillel talmid suggest a tzaras habas as a shidduch for a Bais Shammai talmid?
Absolutely! Why not? According to both B”Sh and B”H it is 100% mutar for talmid of B”Sh to marry a tzaras habas. (before it formalized to allways follow B”H, after which the above stament is no longer true)
In your view you have an interesting paradox and a pretty good riddle:
How can you be oiver lifeni issur by helping someone do somehthing muttar?
ITs not clear to me, maybe you can help.
what kind of picture does it paint?
They support the attack in particular?
Or that they support radical Islam in general?
They don’t like the French?
What picture (“clear picture” ?) does it paint?
Thanks
Matan, Health does not have the same outlook as you. He says it is “very good” (direct quote) that Eric Garner was killed. He went on to says that if Officers Ramos or Liu had ever stolen anything ever it is “very good” that they were shot in the head.
DY. I think R” Belsky’s view on the Eruv is a bit extreme, and not the mainstream.
In your view can I as talmid of R” Menash Klien/’ Yechezkel Roth carry in BP?
(This doesnt have to turn into a discussion about the Eruv in of itself, which to be clear, I do not actually use)
Now granted R’ Belsky would say absolutely not, in which case it would certainly be mesayeah to lend a book on shabbos.
“Can you point to the siman which says it’s muttar?”
You dont need a siman to say it is mutar, there is no siman that says driving a car is mutar it is mutar becasue it isnt assur. Unless ty is Shabbos in which case it is assur becasue…
DY
I see, I never viewed it that way. I always assumed it isnt just that I am legitamete in OTHER aspects of KAshrus/neemanus etc.
To me it seems, as a Talmud of say R’ Belsky I can eat chalav stam even according to You who may hold it is chazer treif.
Of course if you hold nobody can eat it even if you rely on R’ Belsky, then obviously mesayeah would apply.
Is that your (Lior’s) view that nobdoy can eat it?
what about the reverse, according to what you are saying according to those who hold Chalav stam is ok it would seem to be ok for everybody. Can I let you eat Chalav stam, knowig you woudlnt eat it knowingly, becasue my Rav says it is?
Or in a more analagous case. If Lior in a moment of weakness r”chl says He’s chalishing for some hagen daaz where can he get some, according to you there should be no problem in my directing him, since I hold It is ok which, if you are being consistent should extend to everybody.
(To me it seems this would be mesayeha since I know he holds it is assur so it is assur for him, though not for me.)
DY what would the problem be?
Putting aside the technical details of lifnei iver which probably wopuldnt apply since chalav stam is readily available as are things to carry. Even if it were, or if you want to call it mesayeia. What aveira is there?
Assuming that person is allowed to eat chalav stam/carry on Shabbos. (Obviously if you hold even he cant carry/eat chalav stam that is a sepperate discussion) IT is nto an aveira for that person so what lifnei iver/mesayeha could there be?
Lior
As to your first question why not? Am I missing something? Assuming his posek is working within the framework of Orthodox Judaism, yet holds of the Eruv. Why cant that person carry?
Can I tell a Sefardi where to buy Kitniyos he plans to eat on Pesach?
As to your second question:
Have you ever tried asking a DD franchise if you can use their microwave? I tried this morning and was flat out refused.
Have you tried reporting to DD headqaurters?
BTW your concern regarding DD isnt limited to DD. MAybe the lays potatochip guy fried his bacon along with the potato chips yesterday. There is no mashgiach temidi at Lays and they are open on Shabbos.
Profound insight by health!
See in oppressive regimes (Saudi Arabia, Iran Etc) that are the antithesis of liberalism, extremisim can’t flourish.
Health,
“The cop did what he was supposed to do, whether it was PC or Not! “
Is that becasue he was supposed to arrest him and is therfore not responsible for the death? Or he was supposed to kill him becasue Garner had previously violated sheva mitzvos.
I (and most people commenting) are having trouble following your train of “thought”
Thanks DY
Fact 3 is not in dispute. he NYPD admited that the used technique was banned. though it is not illegal.
I’d be happy if anyone can direct a source otherwise.
All 4 of Goq’a facts are factual.
Though reasonable I guess resoanbale people can disagree regarding DY’s point.
Though without question Sam2’s point above is correct. Cops are rarely held accountable and tha is where the anger comes from.
Overall though I thik there is more that is agreed upon than disgareedd:
Namely, both Garner and the police are culable in his death. The police used excessive force. when injustice occurs protests are called for (this is actually what OP began with).
and Finnaly to quote DY Helath’s “whole line of thinking here is totally off”
Health
Pretending you are right,
who was the eid? Who was the dayan?
Health I’m confused why are you quoting Jewsih sources? Especialy when they say the OPPOSITE of your perverse view.
The Rambam says “??? ??? ?????? ???” Who was the eid that Garner stole? who was the dayan?
Health,
he wasnt 6 in high school, they didnt trade. Ramos took his sandwich
Um Health You did, “I’ll answer your question, even though it’s irrelevant! Yes, if they were Oiver the 7 Mitzvahs of B’nai Noach.”
(thanks for answering btw, though I dont get the good cops bad thing not all your comments make much sense (see also the Al Sharpton thing) is thta part of your religion too?)
Now who is lying. Granted they may not have ben oiver as much as garner but According to a highschool classmate of Officer Ramos’s Detective Ramos once took his tuna fish sandwich. according to your “logic” and your evil religion healthism, it is now “very good” that he was murdered.
Ok So when you can say “very good” when cops get killed, well you are right we dont belong to the same religion. Nobody I know from Open orthodoxy coming full circle to neturei karta agrees with you.
does healthism (or does your religion have a more creative name?) have many adherents? I would imagine the life expectancy in your religion isnt very high
As to your question:”Did you agree with Sharpton when he said “Kill the Jews”?”
Obviously not (did he actually say that? I have never heard that claim before, but no matter I’m not sure I agree with al sharpton ever, he is an evil person, though not as evil as people who call the murder of any inocen person let alone police officers “very good”)
“The mob then did kill S/O! If not, what’s the difference between mobs?”
I’m sorry I dont follow. which mob? in 91? Do you mean Charles Price? He was jailed for incitement.
Are you talking about something else?
Gamanit
thanks i read that story but somehow skipped that line.
Health You have still not answered here is my question again:
“”If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?”
(this is what you replied: “What religion are you? Why do libs always have to make the good people (cops) bad & the bad people good?” I dont see an answer there, As to your question I am definitely not an adherent of healthism)
DY, I never said they attemped to harm him, and of course he was resisting arrest.
Gamanit
That isnt exactly how grand juries work they can indict any one they want. For them to watch that video and say nobody did naything worthy of goinfg to trial is upseting o me and worthy of protest. This point has gotten lost over the course of this conversation. I’m not sure that the officers should be found guilty, all I’m saying is there should at least be a trial. For a grand jury to watch the video I saw and conclude nothing wrong took place is very disconcerting and worthy of protest. That is all I am saying. (If you read through the entire looooong conversation this is clear, it may not be apparent from one specific comment). To this end Nequetim agrees, protest is acceptable, he also agrees he police were (partly) “culpable” in the death and used “excessive force” our argument now is if the grand jury should automatically be accepted or not.
So really even if THOSE officers were justly not charged, it doesnt really change the overall situation, in whihc an injustice took place and nobody is being called to answer for it
I love wikipedia, but if you read something that sounds strange check the source. If you look at the source where the heart attack is referenced, it is not there
Neutiquam,
before your break i’d like ot thnak you for your time, it has been fun. You provided well written and thought out responses (unlike some other posters here, including myself as far as well-written goes). I think we agree more than we disagree as I’ve said in my last response (at this moment it is still in moderation)
Brings me back to late night yeshiva hock sessions which I miss.
All the best hope to see you back some time.
I hope you werent offended when I called you naive, I got caught up in the moment.
Neutiquam
-“The facts were that a legal process determined by years of democracy was carried out”
Years of democracy doesnt make it right. ITs not like it is a sytem that is reevluated and fixed, it hasnt chnaged in quite some time, is arguably antiquitated and most of the Western world has dropped it.
-“it would have been even less likely he would be found guilty of a crime.”
I have no problem with that
-“You believe the Jury was wrong. It’s possible, I’ll grant you that”
Hence the protest, Now I think we agree more than we disagree. The discussion began over wether those who protest deserve police protection, You from the start agreed protest was accepable and now concede tha the Jury may have even been wrong! (Which arguably would demand for protest)
-“you have gone from calling it murder to manslaughter over the last few posts”
My view hasnt chanegd I just shifted from using a coloquial expression to legal as per your request. (I dont think i said manslaughter, it isnt manslaughter , I’d call it negligent homicide)
-“We have both got our colouring of the case from the media.”
I dont care for the media they have 24 hours of news o fill and their almost necer is 24 hours of news so they make stuff up to fill most of the time. I got my view on this case from watching the incident myself.
– you keep asking for a better system. I dont think that is my responsobility, but at your insistence sure! here is an idea lets screen out potential biased grand jurors. A reform that has been called for for years and now is being spoken of again thanks to this very case, and the PROTESTS that followed.
Nequeim,
BTw in my comment regarding juries I use jury and grand jury interchangeably. This isnt accurate. The case of garner involved a grand jury. Grand juries dont get screened for bias and such. In a borough like Staten Island which is heavily populated by police officers and their families, it is not improbable tha the jury was biased. Even if they said hey I used to be a cop and I think cops shouldnt be indited they still can serve on a grand jury. Please keep that in mind as you evaluate whether a grand jury decision should be “doubtless”
Health
I dont know fake halacha so well, but I’ll bite. Why was he a treifa?
You also didnt respond to my question to you. here it is again:
“If it tuns out that Officers Ramos and Liu have ever stolen anything in their lives (even a shava perutah or less), ever been mevarech Hashem, gilui Arayos etc, then it is “very good” that they got shot!?”
Nequeitam
– “The Jury decided that there was no case to answer” I beleive the jury was wrong. And this isnt the first time
-“the Jury’s verdict is doubtless better informed that mine or yours'” Doubtless? A jury of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty is now doubtless? You are aware that in choosing a jury lawyers avoid educated people as thye prefer people they can manipulate.
also you have quite a few “probably”s in your post.
-“but you appear unclear as to the process, and freely say that you have no idea how the law can be improved.”
I have lots of ideas bu we are already of topic, if something is worng I dont think you have to offer a better solution inorder to be allowed to protest.
-“don’t actually seem to know why”
Weve been going at this for quite a few posts, you can disagree with me obviously, but I think Ive been pretty clear on why I think an injustice occured here.
-Your congress suggestion was hilarious btw (I assume you were kidding, if you were serious that paragraph is more naive than the one about the infalliable jury)
– “That enough for ya’?”
No! Thats a “probably” and “almost certainly” Definitely not enough to get off scot free fur killing (even accidentally)
-“And I will always support the right to protest”
Again so we agree! as Ive said from my very first post that mentioned you.
-“th officers had no idea he had asthma”
The guy looked like a walking health disaster. YW fan says he wheezed when he taked and couldnt walk a block.
-” But the system then was not the system of today”
Not sure if you are serious. It is exactly the same!
-“that case is evidence of a possible incorrect jury ruling is both conjecture and inaccurate.”
Agreed! it was definitely incorrect jury ruling (Oj later all but confessed). (Though I wonder how you can judge that case if you arent clued in to the events of that trial)
Netiquaim
– “You agree the law has been adhered to,”
I dont agree, Ive heard different reports regarding the “chokehold” ranging between “illegal” and “discouraged” I’ve avoided that line of argument simply because I’m not clear on the facts The the most leniant take i ahve heard is that it is “discouraged” do you know if anyone says it is a routine (encouraged?) use of force such as mace?
-“Can you please come up with a fairer system of choosing when to indict. “
No, that is not my job (thankfully).
– “despite them having far more access to the facts of the case than you have,”
I’m not sure what more evidence they can have than a videotape.
-“So feel free to protest.”
Again so you dont agree with YW fan (read the op) as I have been saying all along.
-“single episode involving a stupid man (I don’t wish to speak ill of the dead, but he shouldn’t have resisted)”
Agreed.
-“being stupid is not a crime”
It absolutely is if it leads to death! I’m not sure if driving with my eyes closed is illegal, though it certainly is stupid, If somebody dies as a result of that of course I committed a crime!
Question for You. (Depending on your age I guess) What did you think of say the OJ Simpson verdict?
YW fan
knowledge isnt always a factor. If I don’t know red means stop,I still get a ticket for driving through it.
YW fan glad to help (though we have covered this)
If he didnt have asthma they would be LESS culpable in murder. I gave an example of pushing on a person’s head. with a tiny bit of force. If by some freak accident a person died as a result of that, it wouldnt be murder, (maybe manslaughter). However if the persn was an infant with a open fontanelle (“soft spot”) you wouldnt say (I hope) well the baby’s physical condition led to its death.
Or (more direct nalagy) if I find a chronic COPD’R who is oxygen dependent and I clamp down on his oxygen supply watch him die as he gasps “I cant breathe” Would you say, well if he wasnt so sick clamping on oxygen wouldnt kill him so his medical issues are what casued death not my choking off his oxygen supply.