All Activity

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 Hi Smac I am trying not to be contradictory or argumentative. Would you consider that people who are drunk, to be safe to drive a motor vehicle, or not. I ask this with a good intention, nothing more.

What scholars may have argued may be different than what was believed at the time of Jesus. According to The One Volume Bible Commentary, Edited by The Rev. J.R. Dummelow, M.A., Queens' College Cambridge, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1936, p. 698. This is commentary on Matthew 22:28: "There was some division of opinion among the rabbis as to whether resurrection would be to a natural or to a supernatural (spiritual) life. A few took the spiritual view, e.g. Rabbi Raf is reported to have often said, 'In the world to come they shall neither eat, nor drink, nor beget children, nor trade. There is neither envy nor strife, but the just shall sit with crowns on their heads, and shall enjoy the splendour of the Divine Majesty.' But the majority inclined to a materialistic view of the resurrection. The pre-Christian book of Enoch says that the righteous after the resurrection shall live so long that they shall beget thousands. The received doctrine is laid down by Rabbi Saadia, who says, 'As the son of the widow of Sarepton, and the son of the Shunamite, ate and drank, and doubtless married wives, so shall it be in the resurrection'; and by Maimonides, who says, 'Men after the resurrection will use meat and drink and will beget children, because since the Wise Architect makes nothing in vain, it follows of necessity that the members of the body are not useless, but fulfil their functions.' The point raised by the Sadducees was often debated by the Jewish doctors, who decided that 'a woman who married two husbands in this world is restored to the first in the next.'"

You are right…I need to focus on what you say. Better yet, focus on what I say about the topic, and then comment about the topic rather than about me. That sure would be nice. I find this to be mostly a Red Herring. I understand what is being said, I just disagree with a lot of it, and I reject some of it outright. I think you and others have been resorting to a combination of Ad Hominem and Red Herring fallacies to distract attention away from the topic and toward me as a person. Sure would be nice to get back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

Grand. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

I assume you are a meat eater, so killing animals is not the issue for you. No, it's not an issue. Killing an animal to immediately burn its carcass on an altar. That's the part with which I struggle. That is not my struggle. See above. Tithing is put to good use. Killing an animal and burning its carcass has no apparent (and mundane) utility. It is purely an expression of faith. I was referencing burnt offerings. Thanks, -Smac

You are right…I need to focus on what you say. Maybe you are listening and maybe you understand, but neither are being conveyed by what you wrote. If you are listening and you do understand, that is rather strange though. What would your intention to intentionally misrepresent so many in the thread? I can’t tell what you know about human psychology, I can see how you apply what knowledge you have though. Though what I wrote that you quoted was not an individual, but a global observation. I know many, many people and probably myself who have been told they are good at writing, even rewarded for it, called insightful, etc, and who are clueless with some of their interactions with others and being able predict how people will react to them. I based this in them telling me, not assumptions. You cannot infer from someone’s writing that they have high comprehension when it comes to how others think of things, though typically this isn’t global…some they get, others they don’t when it dipped below the superficial.

It is focuses on the wrong thing in a different way though….if you change the last part to something that reflects that is true for that individual…otherwise it seems to target the race of the “you” individual. I tried a few phrasings, but not creative today. None of them avoided implying something they shouldn’t have.

No, I am not. Insofar as you are presuming to tell me what is between my ears ("Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved"), yes, you are wrong. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. Your lack of insight as to what I know or do not know about "human psychology" is vast. It is also not unusual for someone to attempt to defend a poor argument by resorting to ad hominem, tone policing, Red Herring, and other logical fallacies. Multiple people who are aligned with your point of view about "all men" being "potential rapists," and disagree with me about it. Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is an informal logical fallacy that claims an idea, belief, or value is true or good simply because a majority or a large number of people believe in it. Sure would be nice to talk about the topic instead of me. Thanks, -Smac

Here is your bias and looks like inability to be empathetic with women in this situation. I can empathize and still disagree. I have a friend who never married, despite fairly extensive efforts to find someone. He has some fairly caustic things to say about "women" as a category. While I empathize (that is, I understand) his frustration and circumstance, I still disagree with his denigrating all women everywhere, as I find that to be not healthy or helpful or valid. And I reject that it is necessary. You conflate empathy with agreement. I don't. Grand. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

How is this not a red flag for you to cause you to stop and think “maybe I am misunderstanding something here’? Because I am not misunderstanding. I am disagreeing. You have affirmed the proposition that "All men are potential rapists." You have presented a paragraph-long exposition on what those five words mean, and that idiosyncratic explanation is supposed to supersede the ordinary and plain language of those five words. I am not going along with that. If Mustard's formulation is in view (that by "all men are potential rapists" she means that "this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations"), then she and you and Bluebell could just say that. But you don't. 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. Thanks, -Smac

Because the logic doesn’t apply, lol. As has been pointed out to you multiple times. I think it does apply. Thanks, -Smac

Doing it and doing it well are not the same thing. Doing it publicly and on display is not my thing. I am listening. I read and respond to virtually every post directed at me. What I am doing is disagreeing. I think you are conflating not listening with not agreeing. Thanks, -Smac

Dan also regularly speaks quite negatively about the Church. On Jesus Christ: Dan: On the Book of Mormon: Dan: Dan: On religion (broadly): Dan: Dan: Dan: On his impact on the faith of other Latter-day Saints: Dan: Dan: Reasonable minds can disagree, but I find much of the above fairly problematic. He is certainly entitled to say whatever he likes. Free Speech is a great thing. But I do not see him as an advocate for the Restored Gospel or the institution that houses it. If I were struggling in my faith and hoping to rehabilitate it, I would not go to Dan. I have also had some personal interactions with Dan in which he accused me of "carrying water" for racists, for wanting to "subjugate" women, and a number of other things. Apart from their falsity, I felt they were, or should have been, beneath Dan as a scholar. Yes. Dan is, broadly, not an "apologist" or a defender of the Church. I think Jacob has a pretty solid take on Dan, but reasonable minds can disagree about such things. To take pot shots (or potshots) means to make casual, random, or critical remarks at someone or something without careful thought, deep preparation, or direct engagement. I don't think Jacob has done this. To the contrary, I think Jacob's assessment of what Dan has said publicly has been studied, deliberate, measured and factually accurate. Thanks, -Smac

So, you concede that in a fairly innocuous place (the library), she would raise her guard just because a man sits next to her? Would she do the same if it was a woman? I'd posit no. I don't see how that is "situational awareness and particularized circumstances". That seems to just be normal day to day stuff. I admit the logical corollary (I don't know why you think I'm not admitting it). Every subset of man (black men, white men, etc) is also potential rapists. But when you make a sentence that singles out the subset of men, that is where the prejudice comes from. The skin color of a man doesn't make him any more dangerous than another. If the statement was "all black men are rapists", that is a prejudiced and pointless statement. Because most rapists are generally those who you know and probably the same skin color as you. If the statement was "all men of the same race as you are rapists", I think I might accept that since I think the statistics bear that out. And yes, it is per se sex-based prejudiced statements. That doesn't make it an ugly statement. Just like how Pence used a sex-based discrimination to exclude all women from his personal space unless his wife was there. For some, it sounded like sex-based prejudice but you seem to see it as a good thing.

Doing it and doing it well are not the same thing. You also may be very good in self reflection in other areas. What is shown here is not much self reflection, but deflection since you are not listening, but mining.

Because the logic doesn’t apply, lol. As has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people. I am going to continue to refuse to deal with the mathematical equation 1+1 =2,000,313,527 no matter how many times someone claims I am refusing to deal with basic math logic.

For someone talking to themselves, yes, quite lucid.

How is this not a red flag for you to cause you to stop and think “maybe I am misunderstanding something here’?

Here is your bias and looks like inability to be empathetic with women in this situation. I am not asking you to accept it is necessary, but accept they view it as necessary. Since it’s a nonstarter, I will leave it at that.

No, I am not. It is not unusual for the person who consistently misunderstands something to not realize it…if they did, they would more likely have corrected the misunderstanding. I would even assume it was my misunderstanding instead of yours as that is my default mode, I find that more useful….except multiple people have mentioned it.

But that isn't D&C 132. So, I don't know why we need to use that definition for D&C 132. Also, the Bible doesn't always use virgin with that meaning. Joel 1:8 - Lament like a virgin wearing sackcloth for the bridegroom of her youth. (ESV) Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth. (KJV) Unless you want to say that marriage was never consummated, this verse is describing a widow as a virgin.

I assume you are a meat eater, so killing animals is not the issue for you. Animal sacrifice done by Hebrews did not torture the animals (except perhaps by the scent of blood and the fear that might have spread). Which doesn’t sound any worse than slaughterhouses. So I am wondering what the issue is. Is it the mechanics or why would God need it done or something else? My view is while it was a hardship for the owner, it was much like tithing today. Some of slaughtered animal and other food products were used to feed the priest community which didn’t own land or farm themselves, so needed this type of support while the rest returned to the owner for a neighborhood feast which was to include the poor, so it wasn’t wasteful and invited sharing.

Uncle

I've been in Arizona for a couple of weeks and haven't read all the posts here yet (I have a lot of catching up to do). But I coincidently listened to that entire episode of Joe Rogan's podcast on part of my 10.5 hour drive between Arizona and Utah, and I really don't understand the big controversy over Dan. I have heard Dan speak highly of the church in many of his videos, and nothing he said in that interview seemed controversial. I haven't listened to Jacob Hansen's take on that interview yet (I don't have time - I need to drive to Arizona and back again to have that kind of time to listen to podcasts ). Jacob is an apologist for the church. That's his YouTube focus. And I like Jacob's approach most of the time, particularly as he testifies of Christ. But I don't think he understands Dan's YouTube focus and why the two are different. But taking potshots at fellow Latter-day Saints just doesn't seem to be in line with what the church represents in my opinion, or even for what Jacob's channel is supposed to represent. I just don't get it.

Self-awareness is "the conscious ability to recognize and reflect on your own thoughts, feelings, behaviors, values, and how you impact the world around you." I do that a lot. I am just not inclined to have you personalize this thread by making me a topic in it. So please, stop trying to do that. As for "relating" (presumably meaning to build social and emotional bonds with people), I do that a lot as well. I just don't want to do that here. You may be conflating "not relating" with "not agreeing." Thanks, -Smac