Ssm And Church "moral" Activism In Political And Judicial Forums

[awyatt]

You seem to not want to know.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

 

Did you even bother to read Calmoriah's quotes provided from the APA study? It appears not.

 

Sample:

 

...while sexual-minority men and women were far more likely to report suicide attempts than heterosexual subjects, the two groups showed similar rates of true suicide attempts.

The findings suggest that gay youth are vulnerable to the media's and researchers' well-meaning but negative depictions of gay youth as highly troubled people heading on a collision course with life...

 

Perhaps you (and some others here) are vulnerable to the same negative depictions, even though the actual studies don't support those depictions.

 

-Allen

[USU78]

I also am not going to waste much time on this either since you seem to have an answer you want to keep no matter what.  The fact is, gays are being singled out specifically because they are gay and are being attacked and murdered.  This is not just some random bar fight, this is targeting a specific minority group solely because of who they are.  Much of the justification comes from people who believe and teach that being gay is evil.  It gives permission for people to justify in their own minds a good enough reason to brutally harm and at times murder.  We see the same thing going on in Russia where the government has singled out gays and taken away their freedom of speech.  Thugs have moved in with, in their minds, government sanction to go ahead a brutalize gays. THIS IS THE POINT.  

 

It sorrows me that you do not have much compassion for what is going on and are not willing to acknowledge the brutality that is pointed directly at gay citizens of this country specifically because they are gay.  

 

No.  This is the point:  your approach is to outdo those whom you claim are bullying with even more significant bullying, by imposing the mailed fist of the State and robbing everybody of their liberties.

 

One can win hearts one heart at a time, but one wins no hearts by making felons of boors.

 

This is the "sad experience" G-d told JSJr about:  unrighteous dominion is inevitable, especially in government, when fallible people are put in charge of others.

 

People are often brutal to one another, and one excuse is as good as another.

 

Is my experience of being terrorized as a kindergartner by black folks on a rampage in the North Bay any more or less significant than somebody in North Dakota getting rolled outside a gay bar?

 

I don't call for black folks to be anathemized, or for legislation [there was plenty in place already] to protect everybody who looks like me, thereby stealing the liberty of my fellow citizens.  Yet this is what you propose:  it's already illegal to hit somebody and cause them serious bodily injury; it's already illegal to kill others without just cause; but that isn't enough, is it?

 

You want homosexual individuals to be a special case, never to suffer at the hands of the boorish or brutal, when all that anybody ever gets is a promise by the State to punish malefactors.

 

Sorry, but I don't care to be taxed for you to be carried around in a basket your whole life long.

[california boy]

 

No.  This is the point:  your approach is to outdo those whom you claim are bullying with even more significant bullying, by imposing the mailed fist of the State and robbing everybody of their liberties.

 

One can win hearts one heart at a time, but one wins no hearts by making felons of boors.

 

This is the "sad experience" G-d told JSJr about:  unrighteous dominion is inevitable, especially in government, when fallible people are put in charge of others.

 

People are often brutal to one another, and one excuse is as good as another.

 

Is my experience of being terrorized as a kindergartner by black folks on a rampage in the North Bay any more or less significant than somebody in North Dakota getting rolled outside a gay bar?

 

I don't call for black folks to be anathemized, or for legislation [there was plenty in place already] to protect everybody who looks like me, thereby stealing the liberty of my fellow citizens.  Yet this is what you propose:  it's already illegal to hit somebody and cause them serious bodily injury; it's already illegal to kill others without just cause; but that isn't enough, is it?

 

You want homosexual individuals to be a special case, never to suffer at the hands of the boorish or brutal, when all that anybody ever gets is a promise by the State to punish malefactors.

 

Sorry, but I don't care to be taxed for you to be carried around in a basket your whole life long.

Whatever.  Moving on.

[USU78]

Whatever.  Moving on.

 

B'bye

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Did you even bother to read Calmoriah's quotes provided from the APA study? It appears not.

 

Sample:

 

 

Perhaps you (and some others here) are vulnerable to the same negative depictions, even though the actual studies don't support those depictions.

 

-Allen

Well, so much for their claims.

[Gray]

 

Did you even bother to read Calmoriah's quotes provided from the APA study? It appears not.

 

Sample:

 

 

Perhaps you (and some others here) are vulnerable to the same negative depictions, even though the actual studies don't support those depictions.

 

-Allen

 

I read it. It doesn't support your position. 

[Tacenda]

No. This is the point: your approach is to outdo those whom you claim are bullying with even more significant bullying, by imposing the mailed fist of the State and robbing everybody of their liberties.

One can win hearts one heart at a time, but one wins no hearts by making felons of boors.

This is the "sad experience" G-d told JSJr about: unrighteous dominion is inevitable, especially in government, when fallible people are put in charge of others.

People are often brutal to one another, and one excuse is as good as another.

Is my experience of being terrorized as a kindergartner by black folks on a rampage in the North Bay any more or less significant than somebody in North Dakota getting rolled outside a gay bar?

I don't call for black folks to be anathemized, or for legislation [there was plenty in place already] to protect everybody who looks like me, thereby stealing the liberty of my fellow citizens. Yet this is what you propose: it's already illegal to hit somebody and cause them serious bodily injury; it's already illegal to kill others without just cause; but that isn't enough, is it?

You want homosexual individuals to be a special case, never to suffer at the hands of the boorish or brutal, when all that anybody ever gets is a promise by the State to punish malefactors.

Sorry, but I don't care to be taxed for you to be carried around in a basket your whole life long.

Have you ever known someone gay in your family? Ever? And I don't mean someone who is happy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was answering your request for evidence of widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, not evidence of its causation for suicide.

 

And once again, Uncle Thomas Sowell's economic statistics notwithstanding, succeeding in spite of discrimination does not negate the existence of discrimination (e.g., Jewish people for the last 2,000 years).

Seriously dude, I don't get people esp, in the black community that use derogatory terms to describe other blacks that have a different political bent. It seriously is uncalled for.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I read it. It doesn't support your position. 

Deep, real deep.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Have you ever known someone gay in your family? Ever? And I don't mean someone who is happy.

What the carp* does that have to do with anything. It's like asking if I know some one in my family that has had cancer. That is irrelevant.

[USU78]

Have you ever known someone gay in your family? Ever? And I don't mean someone who is happy.

 

Why do you care and why should it matter?

[Danzo]

I read it. It doesn't support your position. 

 

Since you seem to be a better reader than us, please point out where the article doesn't support his position.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Danzo

[mormonnewb]

Seriously dude, I don't get people esp, in the black community that use derogatory terms to describe other blacks that have a different political bent. It seriously is uncalled for.

 

Seriously bro, I don't get people who can't see that Uncle Thomas Sowell is an intellectual hack who simply profits from being a shill for racists.  By virtue of his pigment, he can get away with making racist assumptions about "the black community" (as if such a thing exists) that a white person could never get away with.  As a result, he is trotted out to oppose any effort to redress racial disparities in education, economics, you name it.  And he is part of an entire cottage industry of such House Negroes.

 

For example, a few years ago, Uncle Larry Elder wrote a book entitled "Stupid Black Men."  Can you even imagine a white guy getting such a book published?  As the name implies, it was a manifesto on all of the "stupid" things that black men are doing in society.  Now, there is always a place for critical self-reflection, but this book wasn't written TO black men, but rather ABOUT us.   After all, the title virtually ensured that none of us would buy it.  How many Mormons would purchase a book entitled "Stupid Mormon Sheeple"?  Bueller?  Anyone?  Bueller?

 

But back to Sowell ... This isn't an issue of dueling political philosophies.  His purpose is to stoke racial differences and comfort SOME whites in their feeling of "superiority."

 

For instance, here is one of my favorite Sowell abominations:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362030/early-skirmishes-race-war-thomas-sowell

 

He titles it "Early Skirmishes in the Race War."  He starts the essay by remarking how grateful he is to old enough that he might not be around for the impending race war in America.  And what are the causes of this race war?  Increasing economic equalities between the races?  Repeated incidents of unarmed black men dying at the hands of police officers and even civilians?  No!  The problem is the epidemic of roving gangs of black youths randomly attacking white people on the streets of America.

 

Now, if you haven't heard of these "numerous" incidents, Sowell suggests that it is because the media won't cover them, with the exception of Bill O'Reilly who has featured the "Knockout Game" in several recent shows.  Of course, O'Reilly's knockout game turned out to be an urban myth, but why would we expect a "distinguished scholar" to be able to discern fact from fiction?  But I digress ...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/26/knockout-game-myth/3729635/

 

Sowell goes on and on and on about the dangers faced by whites from these roving bands of "thugs."  Of course, he gives no statistical data to inform the reader about the actual extent of the problem.  That's not his point.  His point is to warn us that "racists" (whoever they may be) will soon use these (countless) attacks to justify their hatred of blacks.  And before we know it, the race war is underway.

 

To recap, Sowell is worried about a race war resulting from white backlash against vicious attacks by roaming gangs of black youths.  So to avoid this thing that he presumably doesn't want, he amplifies reports of these incidents (despite a slew of contrary evidence that such attacks are extremely rare and not part of any coordinated attack against "the man").  As someone who has four "black youths," who will be the likely victims in any such race war, do you see why I might not consider Thomas Sowell to be a "friend" to black people?

 

I assume that there are "Uncle Brighams" in Mormonism.  Perhaps, as Mormons, you treat them with deference and respect, but in a language befitting Sowell's perceptions of blacks, this homey don't play dat!

[Gray]

Deep, real deep.

 

I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. ??

[Gray]

Since you seem to be a better reader than us, please point out where the article doesn't support his position.

 

I guess I'd start with the fact that it supports that suicide is more prevalent among LGBT.

[wenglund]

Seriously bro, I don't get people who can't see that Uncle Thomas Sowell is an intellectual hack who simply profits from being a shill for racists.  By virtue of his pigment, he can get away with making racist assumptions about "the black community" (as if such a thing exists) that a white person could never get away with.  As a result, he is trotted out to oppose any effort to redress racial disparities in education, economics, you name it.  And he is part of an entire cottage industry of such House Negroes...

But back to Sowell ... This isn't an issue of dueling political philosophies.  His purpose is to stoke racial differences and comfort SOME whites in their feeling of "superiority."

 

 

Not to derail the thread further, but this errant projection made me chuckle. To see why, read The Politics of Race.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

FYI, our own Dr. Peterson posted a facebook notice of a "family Night" event with Ryan T. Anderson regarding the redefinition of marriage. (See HERE)

 

Should prove interesting.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Danzo]

I guess I'd start with the fact that it supports that suicide is more prevalent among LGBT.

 

you are suggesting that being LGBT causes suicide.

[awyatt]

I guess I'd start with the fact that it supports that suicide is more prevalent among LGBT.

 

Wow. I have no idea how you translate the study's report that "the two groups [homosexual and heterosexual teens] showed similar rates of true suicide attempts" into "suicide is more prevalent among LGBT."

 

Fascinating.

 

-Allen

[USU78]

Wow. I have no idea how you translate the study's report that "the two groups [homosexual and heterosexual teens] showed similar rates of true suicide attempts" into "suicide is more prevalent among LGBT."[/quote ]

Impressive rigor, n'est ce pas?

Edited March 28, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

Not to derail the thread further, but this errant projection made me chuckle. To see why, read The Politics of Race.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bravo! Take that, lunc-heads!

[Tacenda]

Why do you care and why should it matter?

Just wondering because I do, on both mine and my husband's side of the family. And suicidal thoughts were prevalant among them.

[Sleeper Cell]

For example, a few years ago, Uncle Larry Elder wrote a book entitled "Stupid Black Men."  Can you even imagine a white guy getting such a book published?  As the name implies, it was a manifesto on all of the "stupid" things that black men are doing in society.  Now, there is always a place for critical self-reflection, but this book wasn't written TO black men, but rather ABOUT us.   After all, the title virtually ensured that none of us would buy it.  How many Mormons would purchase a book entitled "Stupid Mormon Sheeple"?  Bueller?  Anyone?  Bueller?

 

Yet when challenged  about your choice of title for one of your recent threads: ( “What is it About White Men?”), you responded:  

 

 

My initial salvo reflected sloppy thinking on my part.  Given that, in our Church, the dynamic is always white men claiming that HF has imposed priesthood restrictions on others, I wrongly conflated the desire for exclusivity with "whiteness" and "maleness." 

 

 …  As for "mocking," please understand that this is simply my way.  … And in dealing with issues as sticky as these, I find that humor keeps me from taking myself too seriously.  It also keeps me from slamming my head repeatedly into the keyboard from frustration when some person won't accept my studies …

 

 

Why not cut Larry Elder  the same amount of slack for his choice of title as you ask others to cut you for your choice of title?  

Edited March 28, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[Sleeper Cell]

I was answering your request for evidence of widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, not evidence of its causation for suicide.

 

And once again, Uncle Thomas Sowell's economic statistics notwithstanding, succeeding in spite of discrimination does not negate the existence of discrimination (e.g., Jewish people for the last 2,000 years).

Succeeding in spite of discrimination does not negate the existence of discrimination.  But it does say something about the extent and severity of the discrimination. 

[mormonnewb]

Yet when challenged about your choice of title for one of your recent threads: ( “What is it About White Men?”), you responded:

Why not cut Larry Elder the same amount of slack for his choice of title as you ask others to cut you for your choice of title?

Let's be clear: My contention is that a black man, Larry Elder, writes derogatory things about black people for white readers. In the worst case scenario, I, as a black man, wrote derogatory things about WHITE people to be read by THEM. At the very least, I had the nerve to confront "the man" directly. I didn't post my critique on a black website.

To be like Larry, as a Mormon, I'd have to write negative things about the church and then post them nonmormondialogue.com.

As I mentioned Elder's treachery is not that he has critiques against black culture. Every thinking black person has at least a few. As I suspect every thinking Mormon has a few complaints about our culture. The problem is that Elder isn't addressing those concerns to blacks. He is addressing them to people who can not possibly be part of the solution, which indicates to me that he is not seeking a solution.

Once again, it would be like one of us writing a book called Stupid Mormons and then selling it as a Jehovah's Witness bookstore. Would anyone credibly argue that we were trying to improve the Church?

Edited March 28, 2014 by mormonnewb