Re: Permission to eat meat

In <1123887226.969536.273860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Lisa" <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> By you, since there's no
>> prohibition on turkey, therefore turkey should be OK.

>Right. Provided that I don't violate anything by eating it.

>> What does tradition
>> that it's a variant of chicken have to do with that?

>That tells us that it's not in the set of birds we're forbidden to eat.

See, here's exactly where you're wrong. By your model, chickens are
irrelevant -- all you should have to do is demonstrate that it's not an
owl, a vulture, etc., for each prohibited species. Whatever species
(halachic species, not biologic) is irrelevant, as long as you're sure
it's not one of those. But that's not what you're saying here -- you're
assuring permissiveness, actively, by making a connection to a "known
good" species. That's NOT "that which is not prohibited." Sorry. You're
relying on the permitted case, not the prohibited case, to make your
evaluation. ("chickens are permitted, turkeys are a type of chicken,
therefore turkeys are permitted" as opposed to "vultures are prohibited,
turkeys are not vultures, therefore turkeys are permitted")

>> What does CHICKEN
>> have to do with anything, in your model?

>Chicken is one of the items in the list that defines forbidden birds.
>Hashem gave us a list of birds, and told us that birds not on that list
>are forbidden for us to eat.

Um, what? No he didn't -- he provided a list of birds that are PROHIBITED,
and told us that birds not on that list are PERMITTED for us to eat.

>> Turkey isn't prohibited,
>> therefore, by you, it ought to be prohibited.

>It's not prohibited, therefore it ought to be prohibited? You're a
>moron.
It was a freakin' typo. What's your excuse?

>> This is entirely my model -- finding an appropriate precedent, and ruling
>> according to that precedent. BTW, turkey is a new world food -- so there
>> isn't any Siniatic tradition of eating it.

>Wrong. There clearly is, or we wouldn't be eating it. It's just that
>the tradition wasn't known to the first people to reach North America.

Wow, you are the queen of circular (and strained) reasoning. The above
doesn't make any sort of logical sense. Further, it ought to be entirely
unnecessary if your model is accurate -- doesn't matter what a turkey IS,
only what it ISN'T. Previously you swore up and down that no precedent was
necessary and that I was inventing the whole idea. Suddenly you've changed
your tune. Hm.

>> It's not a variant form of chicken.

>Yes, Steven. It is. Or we wouldn't be eating it. Are you really this
>dense? The modern dicta of taxinomy are irrelevant to the matter. If
>you like, both chicken and turkey are forms of tarnegol, okay? Just
>like a whale is a dag. Obviously a whale isn't a fish, but it most
>certainly is a dag.

It's a "poultry," sure. But once again -- why would you, with your model,
need to demonstrate that it's a poultry? That's my model -- in yours you
should only be required to demonstrate that it's NOT one of the forbidden
animals.

>> Anyway, under your model, what should
>> that have to do with anything? Saying it's like chicken and chicken is
>> permitted is EXACTLY my model.

>I didn't say chicken was permitted. I said it's not forbidden.

Sure - but you aren't categorizing turkey based on what it isn't, but what
it is. Don't play word games.

>> Your model is "it's turkey and turkey isn't >> prohibited therefore
it's permitted."

>That's step one. And if I didn't have specific reason to suspect that
>there might be a problem with it, I'd just eat it.

>You know what, I'm done with you, you little twit. The entirety of
>rabbinic literature forever consists of mitzvot asei and mitzvot lo
>taaseh. Things we must do and things we mayn't do. You want to put
>yourself up against that, fine. You want to froth on about how you
>know better than Jews from time immemorial? Fine. I'm on the record
>as saying that you're suffering from an extreme case of cranio-rectal
>inversion, and I am *done* with you.

><plonk>

Owie!

>Lisa

>PS: Yisroel, there's a limit to danning l'khaf zechut. If you keep
>playing with him, you've only yourself to blame.

--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I finally watched the Palin-turkey "execution" (as the NYT so cleverly worded it) clip, prep
    ... City people just don't "get" country. ... up a turkey, ... down into the cone so just his head was sticking out, ... but I have killed my share of chickens. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: I finally watched the Palin-turkey "execution" (as the NYT so cleverly worded it) clip, prep
    ... City people just don't "get" country. ... up a turkey, ... down into the cone so just his head was sticking out, ... but I have killed my share of chickens. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Permission to eat meat
    ... The circumstances under which I cannot eat ... >strawberries has nothing to do with strawberries not being permitted. ... The only question about turkey is whether or not it is ... prohibition on turkey, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: poultry
    ... turkey, his eyes would light up like neon: ... Yes, chickens ... quail on a hillside. ... wild turkey (I have a flock of each on my property), ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Food
    ...  They have company from Missouri at their house. ... deboned two chickens, chopped veggies and made noodles with no cats in the ... were good to stay out of the way, they were in the hall eating my Turkey. ... I hope dat Piglet gotted sum gud turkey. ...
    (rec.pets.cats.community)