Possibly. It’s also possible that when my 4 year old cousin dumps his peas on the floor, he’s making a statement about the corporate agricultural complex and its widespread use of pesticides and modified foods.
I absolutely agree that a warning is appropriate, as long as the warning is factual. I have no reason to expect it won’t be, but in light of the resistance I think it’s fair to point out that the opposing community will demand factuality.
Well, tell you what. I’ll show you a statement from the Orthodox community questioning the conclusions, and you show me a statement from your four year old cousin laying out his concerns with the corporate agricultural complex.
I’ll even go first:
Now yours?
Don’t be daft.
Oh fuck off, you smug, pedantic twit. I meant blindly. The baby’s finally napping after getting me up last night three times.
Go back to defending crazy, stupid Catholics instead of crazy, stupid Jews.
:rolleyes:
The Haredim are, as I stated before, indulging in pilpul rather than true halacha. They are ignoring the purpose of the law and focusing instead on blind adherence. It’s one of several reasons many Jews like me despise them.
This is not an argument remarkable for its comprehensive rebuttal of my points.
There is noting wrong with a pilpul.
And who are you to say your idea of halacha is superior to Rabbi Neiderman’s? Is your semicha greater than his? Did you perhaps receive yours directly from the Vilna Gaon?
DataX’s cite says the CDC estimated the risk to be less than 1 in 4000. We’re not talking Typhoid Mary here. Let it go: the risk is negligible. (Although the practice is still kind of weird.)
You’re defending a stupid religious practice. No matter how much data you compile on the transmission of herpes viruses through saliva, you won’t be able to negate the fact that they’re sucking on baby dicks.
Well, there’s a shock.
Sure. But apart from salacious insinuation that there is a reason other than following a rabbinic injunction to perform this particular act, what of it?
In other words, you trot out “sucking on baby dicks” to evoke a sort of visceral reaction, a sense that hints at pedophilia without saying it. That’s poisoning the well, and it’s what I complained about in the OP.
For the win!!!
Which part of “sucking on babies’ dicks” is factually incorrect? If it’s correct, I can hardly be said to be poisoning the well, can I.
I’ll keep this maxim in mind as I discuss President Barack Hussein Obama II.
Well, if I hired someone to remove my son’s foreskin and apparently I’m Jewish so I’m familiar with the practice, but then, in a surprise move, the guy doing it bends down and puts my child’s bleeding penis in his mouth, I’m going to be pretty upset. That part should be discussed before hand because not all of them do that and not everyone expects that. Disease transmission aside, warn people you’re going to do that.
I agree it should be discussed ahead of time, but in my view, if you’re an Orthodox Jew it seems to me you’d be familiar with the concept. Certainly you’d be involved enough to ask your mohel ahead of time if he agreed that gauze or a sterilized glass tube was sufficient to meet the metzitzah requirements.
Of course, people who do that are trying to falsely mislead people into the assumption that Obama is a muslim and/or tied to Saddam Hussein. I’m not trying to lead people to any assumption other than the rabbi sucks on babies’ dicks and I’m opposed to that. But nice try.
Let’s examine this a bit more.
You’re right that when people say – truthfully – that the President’s middle name is Hussein, what they’re trying to do is imply a false statement: that the President is Muslim, or has ties to more sinister people also named Hussein.
But when you say, “Sucking babies’ dicks,” you’re making the same kind of implication: that there is an improper motive. You could say, equally factually, that the mohels are using oral suction on the circumcision wound, which doesn’t carry that same pejorative connotation. Indeed, one could choose to say that the mohels are cutting off the ends of babies dicks when one describes circumcision, right? But a fair description of the practice doesn’t make that choice.
It’s not “a pilpul,” oh Rabbi Bricker. It’s just pilpul. And it’s stupid. Stupid religious practices that are potentially dangerous should be abandoned. It’s yet another illustration why many Jews find the Haredim so unappealing. They are all about mindless religious rituals no matter how dumb or sexist or outdated or even potentially dangerous.
Yeah this.
If I said they’re using oral suction on the circumcision wound, the response would be “using oral suction on the circumci-wha? They’re sucking on babies’ dicks? Dude, don’t try to clinicize that in order to make it ok!”