Jump to content

Jared Livesey

Limited
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Jared Livesey

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Recent Profile Visitors

187 profile views
  1. The question is loaded because the claim that blacks are disproportionately harmed by law enforcement on the basis of race is not a shared observation, but a contestable claim. I point you again towards the hypothetical Supreme Court justice who over her career hires 1 law clerk from a race that makes up 13.4% of the US population, and 149 law clerks from other races. I might ask, directly analogous to your question, "whether in light of those observations do you have any reason to think this Supreme Court justice is not motivated by racial animus in her hiring policies and practices?"
  2. @CV75 If I rhetorically characterize my claims as observations, then they aren't claims? Hit my post limit, unfortunately. I guess I don't quite understand your question. Whether what? Could you restate it?
  3. Well, it is only a working conclusion that you won't answer the question. Analogously, if you ask me "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and if I were to respond, "upon what basis do you claim I beat my wife?" my question would take logical priority. After all, the point of your question would not really be to ascertain whether I have stopped beating my wife, but to make the accusation, at the least, that I have beaten her, and my question would address the potentially false accusation entailed in your question.
  4. I prefer to call things by their true names. It helps clarify things. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
  5. Ok, you don't know if it is possible for policies to be racially neutral and to be applied racially neutrally and yet have racially disparate or disproportionate outcomes. Would you agree that coercing people upon a basis that you aren't sure of is unjust - or, to put it in more actionable terms - do you want people to coerce you over things that may not exist?
  6. No, it does not take long to see that no fruit is forthcoming - the third time was the charm.
  7. Speaking very bluntly, and only because you asked, my working conclusion is to not attempt to engage you in conversation, as it proves fruitless.
  8. No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on. No, and that's not the topic I was speaking on. That depends on what we mean by "race." "Ancestral background" is a more verbose equivalent to what I use "race" to mean. Otherwise, I suppose we might type out "the human subspecies of whites of Northern European descent" and "the human subspecies of Sub-Saharan African Blacks," and so on, instead of using the words "whites," "blacks," and so on. How would you answer the questions I posed?
  9. My conclusion is that my question - is "disproportionate" or "disparate" "outcomes" by race sufficient to prove a charge of racial animus, such as the alleged existence of white "systemic racism" - has gone unanswered the three times I have posed it to you, and by that evidence you are disinclined to answer it. Fair enough. A necessary condition to problem solving is having an actual problem to solve. Suppose one sets about to solve the problem of "systemic racism," by which is meant white racism, but everywhere one looks, one cannot find it - the rules are racially neutral, and they ar
  10. Is it possible that government policy on a broader scale has a disproportionately negative effect on black citizens and communities, and yet the government policy on a broader scale be neutral with respect to ancestral background? If not, why not? If so, how does ancestral background become relevant to government policy, or, in other words, why are we talking about race?
  11. Is "disproportion" relevant? Suppose, as a pure hypothetical, over the course of her judgeship a Supreme Court justice hires one law clerk of a certain ancestral background that comprises approximately 13.4% of the general US population, and one hundred forty-nine law clerks not of that ancestral background, for a total of 150 law clerks. For reference, 1/150 is approximately 0.67% of law clerks coming from this ancestral background, which is less than the 13.4% this group comprises of the general population. If the justice hires law clerks proportional to their numbers in the gen
  12. If our goal is to do as the Lord has commanded, neither more nor less, then we simply do not avail ourselves of Dr. Nelson's professional services. The Lord changes not (3 Nephi 24:6), and cannot contradict himself (2 Nephi 9:17; Mosiah 15:27; 3 Nephi 27:18; 2 Timothy 2:13), and the list under consideration, which itself is a "new revelation," is a repetition of the teaching of the Bible on healthcare (James 5:14-15). The point of the teaching is to persuade us to submit to all things the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us (Mosiah 3:19), remembering that his hand is in all things (D&
  13. The entire test of this life is only to see if we will do all things whatsoever God commands us (Abr. 3:25), even at the cost of our lives (JST Matt 16:27). If therefore our goal is to keep God's commandments, no more and no less, then we should do what he said to do with respect to health care, which is entirely contained in D&C 42:43-52. "And that not by the hand of an enemy." Who would go to an enemy to be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food? Or, perhaps we might more appropriately ask, what divides our friends from our enemies? After all, whoever wan
  14. "A man never spiritualizes, nor interprets, only when he does not believe what is written." This is consistent with Joseph's Rule of Interpretation. In light of this thread, however, it suggests a question: would an early Mormon of Joseph's persuasion, such as one holding the view in the quoted material above, believe modern Mormonism to be his own faith?
×
×
  • Create New...