There is no parallel anywhere for a first-world society that raises as many children as possible to be incapable of supporting themselves. It goes against all biological imperative and all sense. And there is every reason to believe that it will end in disaster, bar some enormous change brought on by political pressure."
This is a silly comment. "First world society" is a totally arbitrary meaningless term. Plenty of societies, composed of billions of people raise children with just as much ability to support themselves as Chareidim. Chareidim never asked for a "first world" anti-religious society, if they were faced with the choice of secularist assimilation or moving to a non-first-world country like Chile, they would obviously choose the latter.
You may focus on the half-empty Schneller apartments (which is why they are advertised so heavily), but sadly, many pictures of Benei Berak do bear some resemblance to Somalia. The trash in the streets, the mess, the rat infestation etc etc, not exactly a poster for torah.
"I thought the whole idea of Zionism is that Israel is the only place Jews can really be safe and prosper, and we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the secular Zionists for making that possible, right? But all of the sudden, for the purposes of doom-mongering, the entire Land of Israel and State of Israel is just totally unnecessary, and all these successful Zionists will have no problem just going elsewhere? Oh well, there goes that. That just shows you how sincere the secular Zionists really are."
I think this is a very important point. There's so many layers of irony involved in the current situation. Someone should write an updated version of Herzl's work. They could title it 'Der Judenshtetl.'
“Oh? Really? I thought the whole idea of Zionism is that Israel is the only place Jews can really be safe and prosper, and we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the secular Zionists for making that possible, right? But all of the sudden, for the purposes of doom-mongering, the entire Land of Israel and State of Israel is just totally unnecessary, and all these successful Zionists will have no problem just going elsewhere? Oh well, there goes that. That just shows you how sincere the secular Zionists really are.”
The main difficulty with this point is that the author of the original post was not writing as a secular Zionist, but as someone who “learned for many years in Charedi yeshivos and lives in the Charedi community.”
He is repeating a talking point from secular Zionists, about secular Zionists, being posted on secular Zionist (Natan's) blog. And based on the style, I doubt this "guest" is anybody other than Natan himself, who has a history of sockpuppetting.
Thank God the comments there are filled with doomsday prediction haters.
But there is another doomsday prediction we really should worry about: וחרה אף ה' בכם...ואבדתם מהרה מעל הארץ הטובה אשר ה' נתן לכם. Though surely if such a thing would, God forbid, happen they would blame us...
Wasn't Natan just recently bemoaning his critics commenting anonymously?
I would not be surprised if this post of his just takes his (alleged) sock-puppetry up a notch. Being a museum administrator qualifies as working in the financial sector, given the fundraising aspects of the job. This is one of the worst-written and worst constructed arguments I think he has ever posted, regardless of who wrote it. No wonder it's anonymous. And yet his sycophants can't even bear absolutely cogent criticism of the content.
"The problem with population growth projections is that they naturally follow an exponential curve. When “like begets like” — when the number of kids is just proportional to how many people are currently alive to have kids — you get a function that either explodes to infinity or decays to zero as time goes on. So no matter what the fertility rate is, humanity is always on course for either runaway overpopulation or an empty planet…if you project far enough into the future. Exponentials are inherently unstable."
There is a line. I cannot believe I am agreement on something with test the Hater of Hashem and retard. Name-calling and colorful insults are time-honored traditions of our people, but using euphemisms for coarse vulgarity, not so much.
I must say, I was never aware that the particular word was a euphemism for a different word. Once you commented, I looked it up, and it seems you're right. So I edited the post.
All 'filler words' should he avoided. Those that won't even refer to 'maseches beitzo' even though chazal had no issues, should take great care. PS never been clear why the Aramaic should be any better but it is what it is.
"Hater of Hashem" is obviously worse, as it's a label with clearly defined parameters tightly bound to our mesorah.
Retard is just an insult. It doesn't matter what it is. I use it because it is effective, with a nearly 100% success rate in triggering rationalists into a state of apoplexy. Once the word is introduced, no matter how cogent my arguments, and they are usually very cogent, the discussion turns towards the use of the word, and how mean or inappropriate or hurtful or whatever the word is. I don't associate the word with the mentally handicapped. They do. And they bristle, because they think they're smart and rational.
Natan literally boasted about being accurately called a Hater of Hashem. Mere use of the word retard, which I had resorted to less as time went on, resulted in me being banned, even while I was always careful to abide by his publicly stated rules of the blog.
Hater of Hashem, the accurate label, is not rhetorical. Thus Natan's lack of care and even embrace of it. Retard, the content-less insult, is. It greatly perturbs him and his sycophants. And the effect of potent rhetoric is plain for all to see, when you don't allow yourself to be triggered by its use. If it didn't produce results, I wouldn't use it.
Yep. Like the cohen who used the phrase 'tail of a lizard' the author reveals much about himself through his wording and style. There are ways of rebutting Slifkin like Rav Dovid Kornreich did and that other blogs. But leitzonus, misquoting etc is not the way of a real torah jew.
You are wrong, test. I wouldn't use the word if it wasn't so triggering among my rationalist opponents. It's that simple. Also, there is no "rebutting" those who don't respond to logical argumentation...like rationalists. The latest post by Slifkin, and especially his sycophantic echo chamber, are a perfect case in point. They stick to their guns even when the argument is wrong, on every level.
Aristotle, whom Slifkin referenced in a retarded manner, put it quite well, why rhetoric (which calling people retarded is) works, and in fact, is the only recourse at some point:
Rhetoric is useful because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover, before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. - Aristotle's Rhetoric
There are people who are simply ineducable, no matter their innate intelligence or their education.
Rabbi Eliezer resorted to rhetoric (which is what appeals to divine assistance are) when he couldn't prevail over the other rabbis intellectually. If it weren't for "lo bashamayim hee" he would have arguably been correct. But rhetoric wins no arguments in our mesorah. It is useful to put people in their place though.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/shteiging-into-the-abyss/comment/22931183
"
Natan Slifkin
10 hrs ago
Author
There is no parallel anywhere for a first-world society that raises as many children as possible to be incapable of supporting themselves. It goes against all biological imperative and all sense. And there is every reason to believe that it will end in disaster, bar some enormous change brought on by political pressure."
This is a silly comment. "First world society" is a totally arbitrary meaningless term. Plenty of societies, composed of billions of people raise children with just as much ability to support themselves as Chareidim. Chareidim never asked for a "first world" anti-religious society, if they were faced with the choice of secularist assimilation or moving to a non-first-world country like Chile, they would obviously choose the latter.
You may focus on the half-empty Schneller apartments (which is why they are advertised so heavily), but sadly, many pictures of Benei Berak do bear some resemblance to Somalia. The trash in the streets, the mess, the rat infestation etc etc, not exactly a poster for torah.
Classic example of a deflectionary non-response. Good bye.
Great point.
"I thought the whole idea of Zionism is that Israel is the only place Jews can really be safe and prosper, and we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the secular Zionists for making that possible, right? But all of the sudden, for the purposes of doom-mongering, the entire Land of Israel and State of Israel is just totally unnecessary, and all these successful Zionists will have no problem just going elsewhere? Oh well, there goes that. That just shows you how sincere the secular Zionists really are."
I think this is a very important point. There's so many layers of irony involved in the current situation. Someone should write an updated version of Herzl's work. They could title it 'Der Judenshtetl.'
“Oh? Really? I thought the whole idea of Zionism is that Israel is the only place Jews can really be safe and prosper, and we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the secular Zionists for making that possible, right? But all of the sudden, for the purposes of doom-mongering, the entire Land of Israel and State of Israel is just totally unnecessary, and all these successful Zionists will have no problem just going elsewhere? Oh well, there goes that. That just shows you how sincere the secular Zionists really are.”
The main difficulty with this point is that the author of the original post was not writing as a secular Zionist, but as someone who “learned for many years in Charedi yeshivos and lives in the Charedi community.”
He might also be James Bond’s boss?
He is repeating a talking point from secular Zionists, about secular Zionists, being posted on secular Zionist (Natan's) blog. And based on the style, I doubt this "guest" is anybody other than Natan himself, who has a history of sockpuppetting.
Where else did he sockpuppet? just curious...
a
Great article.
For more of an insight on wrong economic predictions read Anti- fragile by Nassem Taleb.
Thank God the comments there are filled with doomsday prediction haters.
But there is another doomsday prediction we really should worry about: וחרה אף ה' בכם...ואבדתם מהרה מעל הארץ הטובה אשר ה' נתן לכם. Though surely if such a thing would, God forbid, happen they would blame us...
Wasn't Natan just recently bemoaning his critics commenting anonymously?
I would not be surprised if this post of his just takes his (alleged) sock-puppetry up a notch. Being a museum administrator qualifies as working in the financial sector, given the fundraising aspects of the job. This is one of the worst-written and worst constructed arguments I think he has ever posted, regardless of who wrote it. No wonder it's anonymous. And yet his sycophants can't even bear absolutely cogent criticism of the content.
He does sockpuppet occasionally.
Is he "Daniel"?
Here is an interesting perspective on population growth (most of the article is behind a paywall, but the relevant part is open) https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/humanity-is-going-to-shrink.
"The problem with population growth projections is that they naturally follow an exponential curve. When “like begets like” — when the number of kids is just proportional to how many people are currently alive to have kids — you get a function that either explodes to infinity or decays to zero as time goes on. So no matter what the fertility rate is, humanity is always on course for either runaway overpopulation or an empty planet…if you project far enough into the future. Exponentials are inherently unstable."
Can someone find these 'predictions' from the 1990s and publicize them? I am not a researcher, but it shouldn't be too hard with a lexisnexis account.
I remember people talking then.
Is from 2010 also okay?
https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2010/04/economic-ruin.html
And how it's so frighteningly imminent!!!
https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2010/04/economic-ruin.html?showComment=1271148142629#c7282798298609121963
Hat tip to Happy for once finding this for me.
"Friggin' is not a very nice word. Certainly not the loshon nokiah emphasised by chazal etc.
There is a line. I cannot believe I am agreement on something with test the Hater of Hashem and retard. Name-calling and colorful insults are time-honored traditions of our people, but using euphemisms for coarse vulgarity, not so much.
I must say, I was never aware that the particular word was a euphemism for a different word. Once you commented, I looked it up, and it seems you're right. So I edited the post.
All 'filler words' should he avoided. Those that won't even refer to 'maseches beitzo' even though chazal had no issues, should take great care. PS never been clear why the Aramaic should be any better but it is what it is.
This is a perfect case in support of my point. Happy will consider statements from any source, even opponents, and respond appropriately.
Rationalists NEVER do. And by never, I mean never. Are you going to contact R. Reuven and ask him about Indian hair?
What's worse, being a hater of Hashem, or a retard? And can you elaborate on the differences between the two?
Thanks, Pharaoh
"Hater of Hashem" is obviously worse, as it's a label with clearly defined parameters tightly bound to our mesorah.
Retard is just an insult. It doesn't matter what it is. I use it because it is effective, with a nearly 100% success rate in triggering rationalists into a state of apoplexy. Once the word is introduced, no matter how cogent my arguments, and they are usually very cogent, the discussion turns towards the use of the word, and how mean or inappropriate or hurtful or whatever the word is. I don't associate the word with the mentally handicapped. They do. And they bristle, because they think they're smart and rational.
Natan literally boasted about being accurately called a Hater of Hashem. Mere use of the word retard, which I had resorted to less as time went on, resulted in me being banned, even while I was always careful to abide by his publicly stated rules of the blog.
Hater of Hashem, the accurate label, is not rhetorical. Thus Natan's lack of care and even embrace of it. Retard, the content-less insult, is. It greatly perturbs him and his sycophants. And the effect of potent rhetoric is plain for all to see, when you don't allow yourself to be triggered by its use. If it didn't produce results, I wouldn't use it.
Yep. Like the cohen who used the phrase 'tail of a lizard' the author reveals much about himself through his wording and style. There are ways of rebutting Slifkin like Rav Dovid Kornreich did and that other blogs. But leitzonus, misquoting etc is not the way of a real torah jew.
You are wrong, test. I wouldn't use the word if it wasn't so triggering among my rationalist opponents. It's that simple. Also, there is no "rebutting" those who don't respond to logical argumentation...like rationalists. The latest post by Slifkin, and especially his sycophantic echo chamber, are a perfect case in point. They stick to their guns even when the argument is wrong, on every level.
Aristotle, whom Slifkin referenced in a retarded manner, put it quite well, why rhetoric (which calling people retarded is) works, and in fact, is the only recourse at some point:
Rhetoric is useful because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover, before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. - Aristotle's Rhetoric
There are people who are simply ineducable, no matter their innate intelligence or their education.
Rabbi Eliezer resorted to rhetoric (which is what appeals to divine assistance are) when he couldn't prevail over the other rabbis intellectually. If it weren't for "lo bashamayim hee" he would have arguably been correct. But rhetoric wins no arguments in our mesorah. It is useful to put people in their place though.
I enjoy reading these articles knowing that statistics is your area of expertise.
(Say, maybe you can write a guest post for Natan!)
Hilarious! Loved it.