Jump to content

Trump and Mike Lee at March for Life Rally


Recommended Posts

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the March for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 3
Link to post
29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the Match for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

I can see now why we disagree on white privilege.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:
Quote

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the Match for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

I can see now why we disagree on white privilege.

You disagree with Scott because he's an apparent Republican?  And because "white privilege" is a hyper-partisan, politicized concept?

Isn't that what I have been saying?  A lot?

Or, as Mr. Tatum put it: "So, let’s be real: White privilege is an attempt by the left to divide Americans by race."

It's a political potshot.  It has no clinical, empirical meaning or application.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You disagree with Scott because he's an apparent Republican?  And because "white privilege" is a hyper-partisan, politicized concept?

Isn't that what I have been saying?  A lot?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, just referring to Pres. Trump's remarks awhile back. But I think what I said wasn't cool. But do think political outlook can be a division and paint our viewpoints. I'm surrounded by haters of the Democrats in Utah. I don't call myself either though, independent of the two extremes for sure.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/588067/

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

No, just referring to Pres. Trump's remarks awhile back. But I think what I said wasn't cool. But do think political outlook can be a division and paint our viewpoints. I'm surrounded by haters of the Democrats in Utah. I don't call myself either though, independent of the two extremes for sure.

You start by saying "No," but then you seem to essentially concede my point, which is that "white privilege" is a politicized, partisan concept.  "Political outlook can...paint our viewpoints."  I agree wholeheartedly.

This is why I keep pointing to its partisan origins (it was coined/popularized by a leftist academic), and to its partisan use (pretty much exclusively along politically partisal lines), and also to somewhat "objective" approaches to the concept, such as whether "white privilege" has been recognized as a legitimate legal claim or defense, whether it has been defined by published dictionaries.

Thank you,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post

Is Mike Lee and the LDS church going to take the next logical step and push for banning abortion in the case of rape and incest? The life created from rape or incest is still a life and has done nothing wrong to deserve to be aborted. If people are going to protest and argue that an unborn fetus is a life (pro-life rallies!) then they need to extend that to all unborn fetuses. I find the LDS position here illogical. If the response is that carrying the child of a rapist would cause great trauma to a woman than we are admitting that the woman's emotion/psychological health is of greater importance than that of the life of a child. This is conceding a pro-choice premise but only changing where the line is drawn. If, in the case of incest, the argument is given that the child has a greater chance of deformity, then we would have to allow abortion in the cases of down syndrome and the like.

Why does the LDS church hold the position that aborting children is ok in these instances?

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the March for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. 

Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. 

Pride, as in being proud, is a sin.  If you meant "well pleased" then I think you should have said that, instead.

But that still begs the question:  How proud or well pleased were you with Mike or any Utah senator before this momentous moment?

A stirring speech, huh.  I like to wave at moments like that as they pass by.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This. I read the transcript. He went through the mandatory talking points and then quickly pivoted to what he really wanted to talk about: telling everyone how amazing he is.

Well....he is the GOAT. 🐐

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Pride, as in being proud, is a sin.  If you meant "well pleased" then I think you should have said that, instead.

But that still begs the question:  How proud or well pleased were you with Mike or any Utah senator before this momentous moment?

A stirring speech, huh.  I like to wave at moments like that as they pass by.

Three points: 

1. Use of the word “pride” is no longer the anathema in the Church that it was once made out to be. President Uchtdorf clarified that when he was in the First Presidency. Don’t drag us down that semantic rabbit hole. 
 

2. You used the phrase “begs the question” improperly. If you mean it raises the question or it prompts the question, you should say it in that manner. 
 

3. I liked Mike Lee before. I’m even more approving of him now. So what? 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

2. You used the phrase “begs the question” improperly. If you mean it raises the question or it prompts the question, you should say it in that manner. 

This is one of my pet peeves as well :) 

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

It would mean more to me if I thought Trump cared at all about abortion.

I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt if there be any. In any case, the nation’s chief executive has now formally endorsed this event, a benefit it has never before enjoyed. I find that impressive. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 4
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Three points: 

1. Use of the word “pride” is no longer the anathema in the Church that it was once made out to be. President Uchtdorf clarified that when he was in the First Presidency. Don’t drag us down that semantic rabbit hole. 

Oh, so you're one of those people who believes that.  I will try to make that allowance for you but you're not helping me by having a different idea on this issue than I do.  I like to keep things as simple as possible so for me pride is not good and being well pleased is good.

Quote

2. You used the phrase “begs the question” improperly. If you mean it raises the question or it prompts the question, you should say it in that manner. 

My views are interchangable on this point.  I see the desire to beg a question as a stronger feeling which prompts someone to want to ask a question in response to what someone has said.  But I understand that begging doesn't mean the same thing to all people.

Quote

3. I liked Mike Lee before. I’m even more approving of him now. So what? 

I just had a strong desire to know.  That's all.  Thank you for letting me know.  Maybe someday you'll be even more pleased with Mike Lee or any other senator from Utah and you'll then say you don't think you could be pleased any better by any senator from anywhere else.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that refers to circular reasoning. It doesn't mean to prompt a question, but it is often misused to mean that. It is a phrase used in logic.

See here.

If Ahab had seen or remembered what I have posted many times on this oft-misused phrase, he would understand that already. 
 

Or maybe he’s just being (typically) argumentative. 

  • Like 2
Link to post

The number of abortions performed by humans pails in comparison to the number of abortions caused by God.  If they were really going to take this seriously, they should be demonstrating against God.  

Let me clarify, if God can stop a fetus from being terminated, and he hasn't, then he has rejected the sanctity of life that pro-lifers proclaim as reason for no abortions.  If God has stopped one abortion, then why not others?  Or if God is the cause of natural disasters, as in the Noah story where He uses them to murder and maim, then it would stand to reason he is the cause of all abortions. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is no doubt that Trump's motive in pandering to a group of one-issue voters has more to do with his Impeachment and the upcoming election than for his concern for any life other than his own. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

For my part, I reject the criticism of being a “one-issue voter.” Nor do I feel pandered to. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that refers to circular reasoning. It doesn't mean to prompt a question, but it is often misused to mean that. It is a phrase used in logic.

See here.

Okay, that helps to explain that particular use of the term, but I think the term can be used for other purposes, too, while keeping the meaning of the individual words in mind.  When I use the term "begs the question" I generally mean that what someone has said has inspired me to want to ask a question. I don't agree that with the idea that there is only one correct way to use a figure of speech or of the words that are used in that figure of speech.  You can know what the word begging generally refers to and you can also know what the word question generally refers to, so just latch onto that instead of feeling like I should use words the same way that you do.

And by the way, in regard to pet peeves, I don't like having any pets, since pets usually require me to take care of them more than they take care of me.  I like the animals okay, but usually I prefer to just let them roam wild instead of caging them up or fencing them in or making them dependent on me instead of them taking care of themselves.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The number of abortions performed by humans pails in comparison to the number of abortions caused by God.  If they were really going to take this seriously, they should be demonstrating against God.  

Let me clarify, if God can stop a fetus from being terminated, and he hasn't, then he has rejected the sanctity of life that pro-lifers proclaim as reason for no abortions.  If God has stopped one abortion, then why not others?  Or if God is the cause of natural disasters, as in the Noah story where He uses them to murder and maim, then it would stand to reason he is the cause of all abortions. 

I don't know where you're getting the idea that God has stopped anyone from being born who would otherwise have been born if their birth had not been stopped.  Where did you get that idea?

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Ahab had seen or remembered what I have posted many times on this oft-misused phrase, he would understand that already. 

We just don't use language the same way, all the time, even though we sometimes do.  That's all.  You don't always agree with me and I don't always agree with you, either.

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or maybe he’s just being (typically) argumentative. 

I like to think of these things as "discussions" rather than "arguments" but I can go either way since I understand how the term argument is used in a legal sense.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...