Jump to content

The Nehor

Contributor
  • Content Count

    22,309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Nehor

  1. I would say that is more cynical than grudging. To go back to the child learning to share that is the equivalent of the child choosing to share because the child thinks it will win brownie points with the parents they can use as a weapon against other siblings and to secure a larger allowance.
  2. The people you harangue for not publicly speaking out probably speak little to no English, were recently liberated from fa;we imprisonment,, and the prosecutor has probably asked them not to comment to the press. Their silence is not indicative of anything. You can hold US treaties in contempt but they are law. It is amazing you take this case which shows an attorney in complete contempt for law and basic humanity that might ave been prevented by more oversight and try to twist it into a complaint that there is too much oversight. Do you go to the memorials for victims of a mass shooting with a bullhorn and use that opportunity to call for looser gun control laws? Using this incident as a soapbox to rail against regulation of adoptions is pretty equivalent. Your tangent about barbers is inane. Barbers do not transfer legal rights and responsibilities regarding children. It is regulated for a reason. To protect children and birth parents and to prevent human trafficking. If a barber was using a chainsaw to cut hair would you use that opportunity to complain about barber schooling and licensing? Also, the requirements for licensing in those fields are set at the state level so they vary considerably. Same with adoption law though contempt of US treaties with other nations is, of course, illegal no matter what the state says. If the women had complained we would not know it. They would be working with the prosecutor and federal agencies. Of course the placement families do not complain. They got what they wanted. This predator was not trying to rob the adopters probably because they have more knowledge of their rights, speak the local language, and could easily turn the law onto him. No, he instead exploited the vulnerable as such Mahanites often tend to do.
  3. To all those still defending this cretinous creep I am just going to leave this here: https://fox13now.com/2019/10/09/inside-the-home-used-in-alleged-adoption-scheme/ Someone please come back whingeing about how this is unfair and government overreach and how he is persecuted. I dare you. Padlocks on the outsides of the bedrooms the women were staying in to keep them in. Locks to keep them in the basement too. Garbage piled up outside. At least if there was a fire there would be no one surviving to testify. And we get this line from an adopter: “He is a good man and has done a lot of good to help adoptive families.” The self-absorption is disgusting. He could not be a bad person because he got me what I want! That he did that by exploiting others is irrelevant. Lock the slave-running scum in the bedroom of one of those houses and toss in a match.
  4. No, I am completely on board with your “rape is an ultimate good” logic. Definitely. No thinking that is horrific or terrifying at all.
  5. There has already been pushback. I told my Bishop about the handbook yesterday. I think he is meeting with stake president this week so hopefully it will he passed on.
  6. If they will do their calling we will take anyone. Plus we are in Texas. We are the South.
  7. I would like to publicly apologize for no longer being able to respond in the Prohibition/Boy Scouts thread but I thought my shark jumping was fun.
  8. That would explain a lot of things.
  9. Oh yeah, I should not have skimmed it while trying to train a pet. You are right. Ignore my deluded comment.
  10. They can be good but they cannot be godly. Then again, most members are not godly and a sad number are not even good.
  11. Fornicators, adulterers, and rapists also multiply and replenish the earth. You sure you want to use that as your golden standard?
  12. Interesting. Are you sure they are doing away with the dual model with this change or is it more a plan to move a lot of Handbook 1 into Handbook 2 and leave only a few things more semi-confidential? I am not advocating for either but I am curious. Also, when does Handbook 0 (the one the Apostles and Seventies have) go public?
  13. I just read it and I did not notice any changes. Well, maybe one but I could be misremembering. I thought that to be baptized after growing up with a parent in a single gender relationship you had to specifically disavow that kind of relationship in order to be baptized even when you are of legal age but now not. You still do if you are still a minor getting an exception. Then again I could be remembering incorrectly.
  14. Could be. There have also previously been chain updates over several months where they change a lot in sequence over multiple months ( I think I remember a slew of them in 2017) and there are also delays. This revision is listed as October and I can tell you it was not posted last week. I have been checking for something on a weekly basis. In brighter news after my Stake President was trying to push Ward Youth Councils for every week the new handbook says it is usually a monthly meeting. Now to push back against the powers that be!
  15. I should add that my desire to not legalize drugs IS NOT support for the current punishment model for drug offenses. Mandatory minimums and our national incarceration rate are a disgrace and a standing indictment against the idea that we are a free nation and the private prison industry and the politicians and people that peddled them are even more of a national disgrace.
  16. As a fan of this game (I won a mini-tournament of it once) I can see the allure: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12477/bootleggers
  17. I apologize if I came across as insulting to those who had not heard it. I also got it most of my life and then started reading up on it and it really did have a positive effect on the whole. Definitely true. There were small still everywhere. The year between ratification and implementation of the Prohibition Amendment saw an amazingly large market for small private still equipment. It did still lower consumption even factoring in smuggling and illicit production. It is still a conflicted issue though from what I have read I think the societal effects were positive. I am less sure of the effects on the individual. Freedom to choose to drink is one element I left out and I think that was the primary reason behind repeal. One big societal downside I neglected (I actually thought I mentioned it but looking back I did not) is that Prohibition caused a kind of benign contempt for law as the law was dodged. Casual law breaking can generalize. It was also disproportionately targeted at the poor. The amendment gave a year until it took effect and many wealthy built massive wine cellars and the like and got huge stockpiles which were perfectly legal as they were not manufactured or imported while illegal. This attitude was later mimicked on a smaller scale by JFK stockpiling Cuban cigars before implementing the sanctions on Cuba. There was also a xenophobic/patriotic element. In the First World War there were complaints that grains being turned into alcohol that should be sent to support the men fighting the war in Europe and many American beer distilleries were also run by German-Americans who were not riding high after the war for obvious reasons. Many of the distilleries switched to very low alcohol beer which was still legal and many switched to making ice cream. America's disproportionate love of ice cream compared to much of the rest of the world stems from this period. In World War 2 ice cream rations were serious business. Carrier air groups offered ice cream bounties for any ship that rescued a pilot from the ocean. US submarines, despite how critical space was inside, carried ice cream machines. It is a fascinating piece of American history. Incidentally the amendment to bring in Prohibition was the first to have a time limit for ratification. This was challenged in the Supreme Court and found constitutional. Before this a constitutional amendment approved by Congress technically waits forever for enough states to ratify. The 27th Amendment (which limited changes to congressional salaries) was actually proposed in 1789 at the same time as the Bill of Rights amendments but not enough states ratified it. In 1982 a student at UTA wrote a paper pointing out that the amendment was still "live" and could be ratified. The TA gave it a C. The student appealed and was denied. He started a letter writing campaign to state legislatures and they began ratifying the amendment. In 1983 states started ratifying and in 1992 it became law. In 2016 a formal grade change form was initiated and the paper is now an A+ paper. Part of me thinks we should do the same thing with the still "live" Child Labor Amendment. There are some amendments that would be impossible to implement now. One means nothing can federally touch slavery ever and was of questionable legality even then (can you make an amendment that is immune to the normal amendment process?) and Sorry, wandered off topic. The issue I have is that many who want to legalize drug use see any restrictions as 'Prohibition all over again which failed' and things like taxes and restrictions as a kind of "Prohibition Lite" implying they will also fail. I would like that rhetorical weapon to die. If we legalize drugs we should do it because we determine that the individual freedom in this area is more important than the potential societal downsides and not because we throw up our hands and admit defeat because 'Prohibition' or because some people on the internet are convinced marijuana will cure everything from a paper cut to decapitation. I strongly believe that if we legalize we should also implement a reasonable federal tax on recreational drug purchases and that money automatically apportioned above and beyond any budget allocations to treatment programs (structured to keep it from becoming the equivalent of our ridiculous lotteries claiming they support schools and veterans and whatever). I also think we should reevaluate and adjust the federal tax on alcoholic beverages which have been stagnant since the early 90s (in fact they were cut a little a few years back) and do the same with that money. The ATF needs legislation to make the A in their name matter. I would also like legislation allowing the federal government to nationalize pharmaceuticals companies that do not comply with laws that require self-monitoring of drug sales or that increase prices on already existing medications beyond the rate of inflation. I do not expect it to be used but the threat would hopefully be enough. Anyways enough rambling.
  18. Nope, I looked it up. It is worse then I thought: https://www.theonion.com/may-1-1975-1819587830
  19. Oh good, we finally won that war. I was getting worried.
  20. The idea that Prohibition did not work is mostly a myth. It reduced alcohol consumption, cirrhosis deaths fell. It massively reduced the drink until you pass out alcoholism that was a big problem in early America. One of the Founders was concerned that democracy would fail in a nation of alcoholics (though they called it by other names back then) and alcoholic psychosis was not rare at all. In the late 1700s it was common to drink rum or hard cider with every meal. Absenteeism was a big problem nationwide. Instead of coffee in the morning it was alcohol. The hard working abstemious Protestant farmer of the era is more the exception than the rule. They were drinking over twice as much in a year as current Americans. Organized crime violence increased at the same time as Prohibition was in effect (though how much of that came from alcohol production and distribution and how much came from increasing urbanization and the turmoil of the 20s is debated) but domestic violence fell. Murder rates fell. There were downsides to Probibition (poisonous homemade booze, contempt for law due to The failure of Prohibition is a slogan now for drug legalization and has little basis in history. The Prohibition experiment upended drinking habits and is probably a factor in us drinking less then half as much alcohol as our ancestors 200 years ago were. I call that a win.
  21. Using a medical term to talk about disliking someone does not make it an actual syndrome. Is CDS for Hillary also a real thing? No, it is a stupid joke only taken seriously as a real thing by idiots who think it is an effective rhetorical weapon. No offense.
×
×
  • Create New...