All Activity

"Virgin" in a sexual sense. And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (ESV) Then said Mary unto the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (KJV)

I’m so curious about you Smac.

We have clarified five bazillion times In a pretextual and ad hoc effort, yes. The five-word statement "all men are potential rapists" is, on its face, prejudiced. Hence the need to "clarify" and add paragraph-long rationalizations and equivocations and circumlocutions to avoid this patent reality. If that is what you mean, you could say that. That you and others instead resort to the patently prejudiced statement "all men are potential rapists" to purportedly convey this other idea is, in my view, indicative of something else going on. "All men are potential rapists" is patently accusatory. I will continue to speak against patent prejudice. "All Muslims are potential terrorists." "All gay men are potential pedophiles." "All women are potential prostitutes." "All black men are potential rapists." I denounce all of these categorical denigrations because they are per se prejudiced. I likewise denounce "All men are potential rapists" as per se prejudiced. Thanks, -Smac

We have clarified five bazillion times that this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations and does not identify a latant desire within every man. But go off.

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. I think my comments are generally pretty lucid. Okay. I disagree with your perspective that "all men are potential rapists." I find that to be a horrible, prejudiced, unchristian idea that should be set aside by any and all professing Latter-day Saints. If we had a complex and nuanced discussion that involved six words, "all black men are potential rapists," I would focus on that phrase and condemn it for its horribleness. Would you? Thanks, -Smac

Here's someone who can brag about their English skills. 5 stars for this post.

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. I didn't say anything in that post where you claim I let my mask slip ( ) that I haven't been saying since the beginning of discussions on this topic. You just think I did because you are so invested in finding ways to discount my perspective that you happily narrowed a complex and nuanced discussion between us on the subject that has been going on for probably over a year and spans dozens if not hundreds of posts down to five words.

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women". Yes, I accept that. That was not my question. I figured. You and everyone else is fine with saying "all men are potential rapists," but you are not willing to admit the logical corollary that every subset of that category, such as all black men, are also "potential rapists." I think you won't admit this because you see, correctly, the phrase "all black men are potential rapists" as abjectly prejudiced. I am glad you are not prejudiced based on skin color. I hope in time you can set aside prejudice based on sex. "All men are potential rapists" is a per se sex-based prejudiced statement. Thanks, -Smac

There’s no way we aren’t being punked by someone who will argue every minute issue even after being handed clarification on a silver platter. it’s a game, folks.

So, if a man decided to sit right next to her, she wouldn't start to worry? She might. Situational awareness and particularized circumstances are entirely appropriate. What she didn't do, though, is sit in the library while thinking that all men in her vicinity and throughout the world are all "potential rapists." That you refuse to acknowledge that your position is that "all black men are potential rapists" is a rather good illustration. Affirming that statement would obviously be "ugly prejudice." That ugly prejudice remains when you speak of "all Muslim men" or "all gay men" or "all men." It doesn't make a standing character judgement. It is nothing but a standing character judgment. Thanks, -Smac

I would love to have chromesthesia (sound-to-color synesthesia). Other types of synesthesia would probably be awesome too. The thought of experiencing things through multiple senses (that aren't usually associated with that thing) sounds so incredibly awesome. Being able to "see" Vivaldi's Four Seasons, or the Flaming Lips "Yoshimi..." or experience Billie Holiday's music with sight or touch. *swoon* While not so much an ability, and more-so a personality trait that I wouldn't be sad if it was changed... I would love to not get easily bored and/or burned out by hobbies. The second I become good or proficient at something, or learn most of what there is to know about something, it loses all appeal to me and I abandon it. My garage is a graveyard of specialized tools, books, etc. from hobbies that lost their shiny-happy-fun. Other than that, not being able to feel pain would be a welcome change.

What could be reasons why it has become necessary for these women to view their world that way? I reject the premise. There is nothing "necessary" about adopting the abjectly prejudiced worldview that "all men are potential rapists," or else behaving as if all men are potential rapists. This is a choice, not a necessity. "Helpful" to view all men everywhere as "potential rapists?" No. And even if there is something that can be construed as "helpful," then I think Sowell's three questions come into play: Question No. 1: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: Compared to what? Question No. 2: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: At what cost? Question No. 3: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: What evidence do you have? Can you think of any situation where it might be helpful for some women to think of all Black men as potential rapists? Where "A" is predicated on patent prejudice, yes, I refuse to start there. That some women have rationalized (for themselves, anyway) that prejudice based on "the ends justify the means"-style reasoning, or some other reasoning, does not rehabilitate the perspective. Thanks, -Smac

Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved. First, I gotta love that I said "I'm fairly provision in English" (now edited to correct). I think that was an autocorrect thing, though I find quite a few spelling errors in what I post here, I think because I am writing fast and not really checking much. Anyway, I am pretty good at reading English. And I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension. Thanks, -Smac

Paul only talks about two types of bodies, the Celestial and the Terrestrial. The Terrestrial is the inferior mortal body and the Celestial is the greater resurrected body. Celestial is not tied to the sun. The word just refers to heavenly or in the sky. The word terrestrial means earthly or not in the heavens. The verse talks about the glories of the sun, the moon, and the stars and all of those are celestial. They don’t talk about the glory of the Earth. It is hard to figure out how you can make the LDS idea work which tries to tie Terrestrial to the moon and then the JST adds Telestial which isn’t a word and ties it to the stars.

" All people are sinners " , hence , keep your head on a swivel !

Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved. Being able to say with precision what you mean also does not inherently lead to precision in interpreting others who use words differently than you do. It probably helps, but it’s not enough. I suspect being a therapist helps much more, but that’s no guarantee either. I had a relative who was a therapist, even taught how to do it at university. Was shocked at how clueless he was about his own family dynamics. He seemed to choose to just ignore what he could not understand. His dad died before he was born and his mom had to struggle and it showed. It seemed to me he learned how to express love from a textbook. And was not able to go deeper. A sweet, gentle, caring man, but his kids have hangups and he had no idea and often complicated things. You are also in a field that rewards you for making the other guy look as less credible rather than attempting to find the best, the most accurate, or most charitable interpretation. It is not necessary for your success…nor your survival most likely. It is not instinctive for women either. My sister got her doctorate in English literature. Taught various English classes at university for more than a decade. Most beautiful and talented writer I know. Lot of hiccups in her life because she didn’t understand others even while getting the highest scholarships and a great transcript, especially for her analysis of literature. Generous, wonderful woman, but shocked at times by others getting offended by something she said or missing the point. She has gotten much better, especially the last ten years. I don’t think she is as defensive or critical of others and that has probably made a difference.

That's the one, I'm mostly drawing from that article. My conclusion is that Joseph did have something that he understood to be ancient characters that he (and others) wanted to 'git translated'. I don't know what they were, or where he got them, but the various accounts do suggest to me that there was something seemingly authentic, otherwise I doubt that Martin would have been able to meet with the top scholars of the day in New York and possibly (according to Knight), Philadelphia. Supernatural yes, divine no. A classicist like Anthon could take an ancient artifact dug from a mound by a treasure digger seriously, and still dismiss the finder's claim to be able to decipher it with magic spectacles/lenses. What Anthon could not endorse publicly was anything said to have been revealed by an angel and paid for by the sale of Harris' farm. The sequence I find most consistent with the sources: Harris saw Mitchill first, then Anthon. Anthon says so in two of his accounts, and Phelps (January 1831) and Knight agree. Anthon seems to have wanted to examine the artifact itself. Knight said Anthon “rote a very good piece to Joseph” asking for the original: "He now began to be anxious to get them translated. He therefore, with his wife, drew off the characters exactly like the ancient, and sent Martin Harris to see if he could get them translated. He went to Albany and to Philadelphia and to New York, and he found men that could translate some of the characters in all those places. Mitchill and Anthon of New York were the most learned, but there were some characters they could not well understand. Therefore Anthon told him that he thought if he had the original he could translate it. And he wrote a very good piece to Joseph and said if he would send the original he would translate it. But at last Martin Harris told him that he could not have the original, for it was commanded not to be shown. And he was mad and said, “What does this mean?” And he tore the paper that he wrote all to pieces and stamped it under his feet, and says, “Bring me the original or I will not translate it.” Mr. Harris, seeing he was in a passion, said, “Well, I will go home and see, and if they can be had I will write to you immediately.” So he came home and told how it was, and they went to him no more. Then was fulfilled the 29th chapter of Isaiah." - Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History (spelling standardised) Then 2 Nephi 27:15 has the learned man say “Bring hither the book.” Anthon’s letters contradict each other on whether he wrote an opinion (1834 no, 1841 yes). My best guess is that Anthon did write a cautious opinion along with a request to see the actual plates so he could examine them and translate them. I'll post later about this after I finish fact-checking everything, but when we consider the two books Anthon was working on in 1828, his initial interest in the transcript is very plausible, perhaps probable. Harris then undertsood that Anthon had a deeply professional interest in the plates. After Harris told Anthon that they had been commanded by God to not show the plates, Anthon’s interest turned to anger and suspicion and a retraction of his initial opinion. About fifteen months later, Anthon's role was written into 2 Nephi 27 as the learned man seeking worldy gain and profit instead of the glory of God. (2 Nephi 27:16). Anthon had now been publicly outed as the learned man who originally endorsed the controversial Book of Mormon, so his first letter (1834) explaining his encounter with Harris was calculated to leave out anything that might suggest he had written an opinion requesting to see the plates so he could translate them. afaict nothing written before 1829 connects the trip to Isaiah. The earliest accounts describe it as an attempt to 'git them translated' and any claims that it was planned as a fulfillment come later. But that said, it’s very hard for me to read 2 Nephi 27 as if it was written at any time between 559 BC and February 1828. To me it reads like it was written by someone who knew the precise details of what had happened in Anthon’s office. I'd go a step farther and say the learned opinions (whether written down or not) of Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon discussed in February 1828 were used to support the narrative of the Book of Mormon.

Nvmd

What could be reasons why it has become necessary for these women to view their world that way? Can you think of any situation where it might be helpful for some women? If you are drawing a blank, perhaps consider how different women react to different situations? Can you imagine a mental process in a woman where this is the most effective, healthiest (both in terms of safety and emotional cost) protection with the least cost for her? If you still are drawing a blank, have you ever heard of decision paralysis? (This is only one possibility, there are others). This is with the interpretation that one can’t tell who is the rapist and who is not without significant experience. If you insist on using the interpretation “every man is a latent rapist”, no need to respond. You can’t get from A to B if you refuse to start at A.

The intimacy of sharing? I think we all have probably experienced and enjoyed that. But I have never heard it expressed in such a plain way. It reminds me of a mysterious passage in the last book of the New Testament: "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone, which no one knows except him who receives it." ---Rev. 2:17b It sounds like a secret that the just shares with our dear Lord alone. I like your idea a lot. It seems very fitting. Yeah. Nobody is going to be mind reading the new name that is given to the just, who conquers! It reminds me of a song from the 80's after my time. This band called Radiohead made a song called Creep. The singer had the saddest lament of any Psalmist or Jeremiah. He talks about the human desire to be "special". No one can claim that name except he or she who receives it. It is unique and perfectly fulfills the natural human desire to be special.

Fine, "all white, black, brown, red, green, purple, yellow, pink, etc men are potentially dangerous to women". I agree with that statement. I disagree with "all black men are dangerous to women" because it is singling out black men. Black men are just as dangerous as white men.

I said replace my phrase with yours in my argument. You didn't seem to do that. I get you don't like my phrase but the only reason your phrase is different from my phrase is because you think women can have places they don't need to be aware. So, if a man decided to sit right next to her, she wouldn't start to worry? Or if a man stood behind her? Those men are minding their own business and not doing anything. Just being close to her. If a boy next to your daughters, who she doesn't know, moved their hands that brushed their thighs or head or some part of the body, would your daughters think nothing of it? The boy is completely innocent and not doing anything. I don't know why you see it as ugly prejudice. I find it intelligent behavior. It doesn't make a standing character judgement. When I hear the phrase "all men are potential rapist", it doesn't tell me that I'm a rapist. It tells me that if someone doesn't know me, they should treat me as a potential danger. Because they don't know what I will do. I know that I will not be raping them, but they don't. So they should act accordingly.

I don't have the answers. It seems like there are degrees of glory for sure. I would only suggest that every soul of the just is unique and has glory that pertains to him or her alone in different qualities and quantities. I am only speculating. I hold that there is more that is unrevealed than revealed. We seem to be required to accept mysteries. Heh, longview. Thanks for the reply. But I don't think my Church has been told the answers. That is why I cautiously "suggest". All the best longview. I appreciate your questions.

Isn’t an argument that rape is not of God an argument that some of us shouldn’t exist by the same type of reasoning? Because some people are born because their mother was raped by their sperm donor (even donor sounds wrong there)? Serious question, if I am wrong please point out where because I am not following your logic.

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women". Yes, I accept that. But toss "Black" in there to identify just Black men, and no. Sorry, but that's untenable. You say "yes" to the idea that all men are "potentially dangerous to women," and ipso facto you have conceded that all black men - a subset of all men - are necessarily "potentially dangerous to women." It's your reasoning. Please explain how you can affirm that "all men are potential rapists" and then disaffirm that "all black men are potential rapists." The former necessarily includes the latter. Thanks, -Smac