Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

654 Excellent

About LoudmouthMormon

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

1,122 profile views
  1. Close. "We preach a certain brand of behavior, and you must agree to abide by our standards to be part of it". One is nonhypocritical, transparent discrimination. The other is doublespeak, politically-correct, and self-contradicting. Whiplash inducing for the reasonable person. I mean, if they ditched the diversity language and just went with something like "we don't want anything to do with people who discriminate based on sexual preference", at least they would be intellectually honest and consistent. Our culture is a few years past a crossroads. The minority calls for equality, inclusion, diversity. LGBT support has been in the minority until around 10 years ago, when they gained majority support. Just these ignorant folks never got the memo, so they sound stupid.
  2. Too wordy. Here's more succinct: "We foster diversity by excluding organizations who see things differently." Can they? Sure. Should they? Well, if that's their reasoning, their reasoning is pretty stupid.
  3. Yay - they've expanded their giving machine locations! That's such a cool idea for 1st world country residents with excess disposable income and a convenience-only mindset.
  4. The character assassination of one side to the other in this debate always amazes me. It's almost as bad as our current political climate. I appreciate your point-by-point refutation of that graph (which I agree doesn't substantiate my claim), but dang - "He's a lying liar who lies and makes stuff up all the time and you can always safely ignore the liar cuz he's a liar and nobody likes him and he also is creepy on social media" - whenever I hear something like that, it's an automatic red flag that I'm dealing with someone who has their own blinding bias. Similar to what I do when someone tells me about the evil lying lazy fraud Joseph Smith, I get more interested in what people are saying after encountering a response like yours, not less. I've been searching my archives for the two large studies I was thinking of when I posted, I can't find them. (Neither was a Lott product if memory serves.) Here's a Lott study. Footnote #10 is a dead link. Footnote #9 is a live link to updated Florida government data - between 1987 and 2019, 4.4 million licenses issued, 15.4k revocations, or 0.35%. Or 350 revocations per 100,000 permit holders. Comparing that to a quick wikipedia scan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate), out of 96 results, around 79 have higher violent crime rates, with 23 results topping 1000 per 100k. Florida has 6 entries. Adding the permit holders to the mix, here are the results: City Total Violent Crime Hialeah 198.52 Permit holders 350 Tampa 464.41 Jacksonville 631.32 St. Petersburg 698.49 Miami 720.94 Orlando 744.06 (And I'm being charitable here, mixing in all revoked permits as if they were crimes. I think you can lose your permit for things less serious than a crime.)
  5. Yeah, much of it comes from Lott's website, which links to many different small local or state studies.
  6. Good question. It depends on the study. Lower rates than non-permit holders - sometimes even when you lump both gun-owners and non-gun-owners into the other category. Like this: Note that we're comparing permit holders to "adults", whether these adults own guns or not. Because yeah, lots of felons can't own guns, but commit violent crimes with them anyway. And lots of people who commit suicide do it with a gun they don't own. Audacious claim that makes good food for thought, isn't it @Calm?
  7. When it comes to gun laws and law-abiding good folk, we've got two basic kinds of people. Those who put a premium on feeling safe, and those who put a premium on being able to defend themselves. Like any substantial demographic, you can find fools and smarties, mature and immature people in each group. A significant portion of the first group are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the realities, partly because every new thing they learn about it causes anxiety, worry, even fear. The notion of someone sitting next to them armed in church makes them feel the opposite of safe. Although I'm a member of the 2nd group, I must admit: There are enough idiots and immature folk in the 2nd group, to warrant such feelings. Here in Colorado, where I think over 10% of the citizenry are permitted, we've got a good compromise. Many of our govt offices, private businesses, even hospitals, display a sign that says something to the tune of: [In the bottom of the sign, in very small print, is the section of the relevant state or local code that allows concealed carry. The words "conceal carry" or "permit" do not appear anywhere on the sign.] In case you didn't know, 20-30 years of study have demonstrated pretty conclusively that permit holders have lower rates of negligent discharge, accidents, and violent crime. This way, the ignorant people who want to feel safe have a comforting sign, and the permit holders get to be able to defend themselves. And the ignorant members of the 2nd group just look at the sign and go "aww man, da man is out to get me", and leave their gun in their glove box to get stolen.
  8. Love Halloween. Love dressing up, putting on a persona. My future wife and I volunteered at SLC's the Institute of Terror one season, it was a blast. I am quite introverted, and do not enjoy talking about material possessions, sports, and a crapton of stuff people talk about. I do like talking shop with other borderline-cosplayers who struggle to fly the freak flag only a couple of nights a year. I am sad my daughters are growing out of it, and I hope they produce grandbabies for me so I can do family Halloween stuff again.
  9. He also advocated gun confiscation. I wonder if he got any smarter as a result of running.
  10. I honestly was inches away from twisting their dumb little heads off. I was literally trembling with rage - pulse and breathing had quickened, fight/flight centers of my brain were getting plenty of blood. I'm trying how to think of that moment as me being upset, but I just can't reconcile it. Something to consider: It sounds like you think about emotions in terms of behaviors. No behaviors = you must be feeling something else.
  11. So, I came home with my 6 or 7 yr old daughter one day, to discover that my wife's hatchery box of baby turkeys had experienced an escape, and my daughter's bedroom was covered in a dozen baby turkeys pooping on everything. They had been out for several hours. I was enraged at the mess that I would now have to clean up. Off on the periphery of my senses, I saw my daughter was afraid that I'd hurt the turkeys. It was a teaching moment. It went something like this: "Are you mad?" "Yes." "Are you going to hurt the turkeys?" "No, I'm going to just stand here and tremble with rage for a moment. When I calm down, I'll take care of them." It took about 30 seconds. It would have taken longer, but I saw the one especially stupid turkey who had found the necklace, and had swallowed everything except the jewel hanging from it. Life threatening event replaced the anger with concern. Emotions are frivolous and fleeting, and can get displaced by the next emotion easily. But it's possible (at least for me) to behave calmly even in the grips of rage.
  12. Emotions spring from our beliefs. When we believe truth, we'll occasionally have righteous anger. When we believe crap (and the human race is well versed in believing crap), we'll occasionally have unrighteous anger. Like others are saying, emotions are morally neutral, but the behaviors that we let spring from them are not. This is true whether our anger is righteous or unrighteous.
  • Create New...