Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
USU78

The Tyranny of Enforced Tolerance

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is that a tautology or a doxology?

It is a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mapman said:

What's with the spamming of political stuff that doesn't have anything to do with Mormonism?

I thought it was going to be taken to a religious stance so didn't report it as political, but it never got there that I recall (just was 'if I don't want to see something when I am having a really bad day, I shouldn't have to').  My responses only felt religious (I passionately hate rules requiring women to wear skirts as the vast majority of time I am not in skirt mood and all my clothes are maxi these days).

Anyone report the thread yet?

Not sure if this will work, but is this really that upsetting, (I get surprising)?

https://www.google.com/search?q=man+wear+skirt+suit&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjr5o2FnvTjAhWxkJ4KHT27CZAQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=man+wear+skirt+suit&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.3..33i299.13047.25916..26712...0.0..0.160.4268.18j25......0....1.......0..33i10j0j0i24j0i67j0i5i10i30j0i30j0i13j0i13i5i30j0i8i10i30j0i8i13i30.AMO9l7Y41JA&ei=UJZMXev-NLGh-gS99qaACQ&bih=704&biw=1024&client=safari&prmd=isvn&safe=active&hl=en-ca#imgrc=mAWh_sG_45sa3M

Lose the provocative pose and the longer string of pearls to be properly understated for a funeral home, is this an inherently disturbing sight to anyone or is it about principle...not wanting to share the same space when one is already upset with someone who upsets you just by looking at them?

https://pin.it/7gmesrf3dxf2rn

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought it was going to be taken to a religious stance so didn't report it as political, but it never got there that I recall (just was 'if I don't want to see something when I am having a really bad day, I shouldn't have to').  My responses only felt religious (I passionately hate rules requiring women to wear skirts as the vast majority of time I am not in skirt mood and all my clothes are maxi these days).

Anyone report the thread yet?

I reported it a couple hours ago. It seems like the mods haven't been as involved as much recently and take longer to take action (just my impression, I could be wrong).

I definitely feel the same way about the topic as you, but I don't think this is the right board to discuss it unless we are talking about a quote from a church leader or something. This thread has been pretty much devoid of any mention of the church so it seems off-topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If Roe v Wade were overturned most of the solidly red states would make it illegal without exception, probably until someone sympathetic to the voters died in childbirth in a dangerous pregnancy where the doctors predicted she would die.

I notice that four times you mention the mother and the mother’s responsibility and did not once mention the father or his responsibility. Why is that?

So long as the democide against black folks and the disabled can continue unabated, we'll all salute, but not genuflect.  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought it was going to be taken to a religious stance so didn't report it as political, but it never got there that I recall (just was 'if I don't want to see something when I am having a really bad day, I shouldn't have to').  My responses only felt religious (I passionately hate rules requiring women to wear skirts as the vast majority of time I am not in skirt mood and all my clothes are maxi these days).

Anyone report the thread yet?

Fashion has nothing to do with it, as envisioned by me.  I don't care if women wear pant suits and such things to church or in conference.  I don't figure it's any of my or anybody else's business. 

If fashion choices are politicized or are a big "up yours, mom and dad," then I imagine it's worth a conversation between the chooser and whoever.  They become evidence of sickness of soul that needs addressing.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If Roe v Wade were overturned most of the solidly red states would make it illegal without exception, probably until someone sympathetic to the voters died in childbirth in a dangerous pregnancy where the doctors predicted she would die.

I notice that four times you mention the mother and the mother’s responsibility and did not once mention the father or his responsibility. Why is that?

It's the woman's body, as they say.  She is the one who would be going under the procedure to have an abortion, if she were to decide to have an abortion, so she should be the one to say "Heck NO I ain't going to be having me no ABORTION!" in whatever language she speaks.

The father should of course agree with that sentiment and although it is his child ALSO it is still up to the mother to decline to have the operation to kill her wee little baby.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, mapman said:

It seems like the mods haven't been as involved as much recently and take longer to take action (just my impression, I could be wrong).

It comes and goes.  I remember awhile back I reported something and then read another thread, thought of an additional thought for the first one and went to edit and it was already locked (someone might have reported it earlier, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It's the woman's body, as they say.  She is the one who would be going under the procedure to have an abortion, if she were to decide to have an abortion, so she should be the one to say "Heck NO I ain't going to be having me no ABORTION!" in whatever language she speaks.

The father should of course agree with that sentiment and although it is his child ALSO it is still up to the mother to decline to have the operation to kill her wee little baby.

And what if the woman wants an abortion but the father not?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Fashion has nothing to do with it, as envisioned by me.  I don't care if women wear pant suits and such things to church or in conference.  I don't figure it's any of my or anybody else's business.  

Then why is it your business if a man feels more comfortable wearing a skirt for whatever reason?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why is it your business if a man feels more comfortable wearing a skirt for whatever reason?

I got drawn into this mess because of the audacity of the former employee who decided to take legal action against his former employer because his former employer had a dress code for all of his employees and he didn't like his former employer's dress code.

The proper thing to do in that situation: the former employee finds himself another job and his former employer finds himself another employee who is willing to honor his dress code.

There is nothing wrong with that employer's dress code.  No more than there is anything wrong with BYU's dress code.  If anyone doesn't like either they can just leave and go somewhere else where they like their conditions.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what if the woman wants an abortion but the father not?

Then the woman should change her mind.  It is her perogative to do that.

But seriously, folks, nobody should want a woman to have an abortion unless the circumstances are drastic and it is to save the woman's life.  The fact that she may want it, for no specific reason than because she just doesn't want it, is just not good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why is it your business if a man feels more comfortable wearing a skirt for whatever reason?

Not an honest question, in my opinion.  What that just was was political correctness trying to douse honest expression of feeling. 

It is my business or the business of whoever is affected by the wrong place/wrong time expression of personal preference when that expression invades the solemn, the sacred, etc.  Wearing a Goldwater in '64 lapel pin would be of the same kind:  wrong place/wrong time personal expression in a venue and at an event that has nothing to do with the feelings of the crossdressing or conservative bully, honestly felt or otherwise..

Edited by USU78
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, provoman said:

Didn't a State assembly, a southern state I think, pass an abortion law it knew was not Constitutional? But since a suit was brought, the parties get appeal rights, which means get it back to SCOTUS and attempt to over turn Roe v. Wade.

Not even close the same thing.  Republicans beat the drum against abortion.  The easy solution is to amend the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Congress did that for Prohibition, and then reversed it.  Congress gave blacks the right to vote by this process.  Congress amended the constitution to provide for a different succession to the presidency.  But they won't do that to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Why not?  The answer is (1) the American public would not stand for it; it wants as a general matter abortion and (2) abortion is race war against blacks and Hispanics.  This article talks about the disproportionate effect abortion is having on blacks and Hispanics.   Abortion is a most heinous evil.  Yet, when Republicans dominated the presidency and both houses, and the state houses, was there an attempt to amend?  No.  There was lots of frivolous talk about a flag burning amendment, however.  

Republicans demand and want entrenched power, and abortion is one way to get it.   

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have found in the past that as soon as I post a long response to a controversial thread, the thread gets shut down... so here goes.

1. The man in a relationship has no veto power over an abortion and rarely gets to voice an opinion.

2. It is sad to say, but in my opinion many ( the majority ?) of unmarried men faced with a child to support for 18 years , will be happy to see the fetus gone.

3. There really are not enough families ready to adopt and it is an expensive and sometimes heartbreaking process.

4. Dress Codes...  is that really what the courts are used for now??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

{snip}

4. Dress Codes...  is that really what the courts are used for now??

Ha!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Looks like a woman trying to dress like a man. 

That is what you think.  I suspect most people don’t think that way anymore. I see her outfit as very feminine and very attractive myself.

 Both of our opinions may have nothing to do with what she thinks or her purpose. When I wear a suit, I am not thinking I am so looking like a man, I am thinking I am dressing appropriately for the event and comfortably as well (I love suit jackets if they fit a little loose at the shoulders).  My daughter loves ties and looks great in them.

There are those who think if a woman wears a skirt anywhere above her knees or one that is particularly flowing, she is being intentionally provocative.

Should a woman or man have to dress because a limited part of the population see their fashion choice in certain ways?

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Then the woman should change her mind.  It is her perogative to do that.

Why can’t the father change his mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not an honest question, in my opinion.  What that just was was political correctness trying to douse honest expression of feeling. 

It is my business or the business of whoever is affected by the wrong place/wrong time expression of personal preference when that expression invades the solemn, the sacred, etc.  Wearing a Goldwater in '64 lapel pin would be of the same kind:  wrong place/wrong time personal expression in a venue and at an event that has nothing to do with the feelings of the crossdressing or conservative bully, honestly felt or otherwise..

I only ask questions I am serious about. I want to know how people think. In this case it seems inconsistent to me. 

So it is expression and not actual appearance that disturbs you?  Significant Obesity is not an expression and therefore should be allowed even if highly disturbing to some people (as well as appearing like a choice to many)?

Whst about those who believe transgender is not an expression, a trans woman who feels they are really a woman, not that they just want to look like a woman?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

Why can’t the father change his mind?

He could, feasibly,  but he shouldn't because he has the right idea that abortion is wrong unless it is to save the woman's life.  From death.  Not just so she can be saved the expense and time and attention of caring for her wee little baby as it grows to adulthood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whst about those who believe transgender isn’t is not an expression, a trans woman who feels they are really a woman, not that they just want to look like a woman?

Let's get real, here.   You're talking about a man who thinks he's a woman or feels very strongly that he should be or should have been a woman, but is really, in reality, just a man with those thoughts and those feelings.

I think we need more doctors in the world to try to help people like this.  Or maybe just teach them how they can have a long talk with God about things like that, and all kinds of other things, as God helps to teach them the truth/what is really real in reality.

Some people just have some crazy ideas.  Honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Some people just have some crazy ideas.  Honestly.

Yep. Like God talks to them. 

There is crazy harmful and not so harmful. I think we need to take extra care on crazy harmful, not so much when it really isn’t. Who is being harmed when someone wears a skirt suit?  Back in the day men wore long robes and skirts.  There is nothing inherently manly in pants or necessary to wear them.  It is a fashion choice.

Depending on what is being asked to do, it could actually be harmful to require a woman to wear a skirt in certain jobs. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Prof Kingsfield's character gave us all the impression that the law is a living abstraction permitting people to live in harmony and beauty.

My first year contracts prof, Harvard law dude, also the dean at the ewe at the time, wrote three words on the board early on:  "Tools, not rules."  Everything we learned thereafter in every area of law was to be looked at from this perspective:  everything you encounter gives you a tool for crafting aggressive, defensive, and/or malicious outcomes* for your client.  The idea that the law is a benign if not wondrous bit of magic became laughable.  There are no answers to life's questions to be found there, only a scrum where competing interests battle it out using the tools the attorney on each side is clever enough to employ at the right time and in the right way.

I sigh and weep a little maybe at the good-intentioned naivete implicit in your post.  The law ain't what you think it is, and nothing's ever settled so long as interests compete, which is forever.

*Hence vexatious lawsuits, writs of habeas corpus, and, again, vexatious lawsuits described by JSJr.

I've never heard it described as a "scrum," but that is a very apt description.  My not so naive view, Grasshopper, is that a scrum is much better than a blood feud, which is the beauty of the ritualized procedures which govern the Law.  Ahab thought that righteousness was the objective of the Law, which means that he missed the point completely.  There is, however, majesty in good lawyering and a well-argued case.

Years ago, when Rex Lee was the Solicitor General of the United States, the ACLU had an article about him in their regular newsletter.  They frequently went up against him at the bar of the Supreme Court and considered him a formidable opponent,  a great lawyer.  What impressed them even more than his forensic skill, was his graciousness and unfailing courtesy.  He was always willing to stipulate to honest facts, was never small-minded.  I circulated that article at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

Yep. Like God talks to them. 

No, that's not a crazy idea.  God really does talk to everybody.  And so does Satan. Some people just refuse to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ahab thought that righteousness was the objective of the Law, which means that he missed the point completely. 

No, you misunderstood me, evidently.  Righteousness is the objective of living, or living well, rather than living to merely to follow a law or the Law.  

Some people equate following a or the Law as akin to following God, or living a good life, but living by laws that are not good laws doesn't improve the quality of that person's life, even if it may keep him out of jail as long as his unrighteous actions are not illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ahab said:

  If that mother can't handle her responsibilities to care and nurture that child there are plenty of other people who would love to and would try to do as good as they know how to do it.

But would there be if all the babies were taken to full term at the usual rate that are now aborted?

There used to be many homes for abandoned children/babies back when abortion wasn’t legal. And even now many children are not adopted. Nor are many special needs babies.

Why do you assume things would be different now?

(not saying this justifies abortion, just that a woman can trust that her baby will be likely placed in a home isn’t a valid argument against abortion based on history, that really only works during times when demand for babies is higher than supply...all babies, not just those of certain appearances or background)

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...