Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Sleeping in EQ]

Arousal is a function of biology, not consent. This goes for both males as well as females.



Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

I agree, but the law may not.

One of the challenges we're having is that human beings aren't nearly as rational as they say they are. There are aspects of the self that are beyond the awareness of the active mind, and we can't control them, but we have an environment that influences them.

Frankly, outside of a deeply religious commitment in marriage, I wouldn't marry. Men practically have no rights in marriage in the U.S. Her body has choice; his body doesn't. She'll take half your stuff and marry up even though she might have better job prospects. And a man is one accusation from having his life ruined; not an arrest or conviction mind you, just an accusation. The social media mobs will destroy him and move on and the lawyers will clean up the rest. It's tribal, it's awful, and we need to get a handle on it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree, but the law may not.

One of the challenges we're having is that human beings aren't nearly as rational as they say they are. There are aspects of the self that are beyond the awareness of the active mind, and we can't control them, but we have an environment that influences them.

Frankly, outside of a deeply religious commitment in marriage, I wouldn't marry. Men practically have no rights in marriage in the U.S. Her body has choice; his body doesn't. She'll take half your stuff and marry up even though she might have better job prospects. And a man is one accusation from having his life ruined; not an arrest or conviction mind you, just an accusation. The social media mobs will destroy him and move on and the lawyers will clean up the rest. It's tribal, it's awful, and we need to get a handle on it.

Holy crap, that was cynical.

[Topper]

I agree, but the law may not.

One of the challenges we're having is that human beings aren't nearly as rational as they say they are. There are aspects of the self that are beyond the awareness of the active mind, and we can't control them, but we have an environment that influences them.

Frankly, outside of a deeply religious commitment in marriage, I wouldn't marry. Men practically have no rights in marriage in the U.S. Her body has choice; his body doesn't. She'll take half your stuff and marry up even though she might have better job prospects. And a man is one accusation from having his life ruined; not an arrest or conviction mind you, just an accusation. The social media mobs will destroy him and move on and the lawyers will clean up the rest. It's tribal, it's awful, and we need to get a handle on it.

The practical application of the law brings the results and conclusions you draw.

I don't see the pendulum swinging back toward moderation any time soon, because in the end, humans are tribal, not communal. Instead, because the mob rule is succeeding in accruing more power for those seeking it, it is more likely that it will worse before there is any backlash against it. And you may not outlive the witch hunts and tribalism.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Holy crap, that was cynical.

Holy crap, that was dismissive, fact free, and predictable.

I am not cynical; I am happy fellow. But I've also seen more than my share of family law at work.

[creekster]

Holy crap, that was dismissive, fact free, and predictable.

Dismissive? Not really. It acknowledged and commented.

Fact free? As compared to what? Your original post was largely unburdened with documented facts, although it was full of a lot of opinion masquerading as facts ("Men practically have no rights in marriage in the U.S."). Nothing wrong with offering up some frothy if seemingly overwrought opinions, but if you do it is a little hard to take seriously your criticism of responses as being non-factual.

Predictable? Perhaps. But do you mean predictable that a cynical post would elicit a comment that it is cynical or that JL sees cynicism everywhere he looks?

[Topper]

But I've also seen more than my share of family law at work.

Family law is ugly and cruel, despite its necessity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Holy crap, that was dismissive, fact free, and predictable.

I am not cynical; I am happy fellow. But I've also seen more than my share of family law at work.

Let's see here. You are only married out of religious guilt and women and society at large are conspiring to destroy you at any moment. But you aren't cynical!

lol... OK.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Let's see here. You are only married out of religious guilt and women and society at large are conspiring to destroy you at any moment. But you aren't cynical!

lol... OK.

No.

Maybe you're being a little cynical?

Certainly you're being absurdly judgmental about someone you don't even know. And your distortion of what I said is absurd.

But then anyone who disturbs your complacency gets your wrath.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Dismissive? Not really. It acknowledged and commented.

Fact free? As compared to what? Your original post was largely unburdened with documented facts, although it was full of a lot of opinion masquerading as facts ("Men practically have no rights in marriage in the U.S."). Nothing wrong with offering up some frothy if seemingly overwrought opinions, but if you do it is a little hard to take seriously your criticism of responses as being non-factual.

Predictable? Perhaps. But do you mean predictable that a cynical post would elicit a comment that it is cynical or that JL sees cynicism everywhere he looks?

This isn't the first time JL has accused me of cynicism--and the accusation simply isn't the reality. I'm not cynical. I'm an optimistic guy who finds a great amount of joy in life. I play guitar, I go to church, I have fun with friends, I watch old movies, I try not to take things too seriously. When JL tries to interact with me as though I'm Funk he does both of us a disservice.

In this instance, my point is that family law is a significant disincentive for men to marry. JL should apologize for suggesting that I only "married out of religious guilt" or that "society at large" is conspiring to destroy me "at any moment." Those are distortions of what I said and a smart guy like you must realize that.

[tooblue]

Why sex assault complainants are turning to human rights tribunals, instead of criminal justice system

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/some-sex-assault-complainants-turning-to-human-rights-tribunal-to-seek-change

[tooblue]

Dismissive? Not really. It acknowledged and commented.

Fact free? As compared to what? Your original post was largely unburdened with documented facts, although it was full of a lot of opinion masquerading as facts ("Men practically have no rights in marriage in the U.S."). Nothing wrong with offering up some frothy if seemingly overwrought opinions, but if you do it is a little hard to take seriously your criticism of responses as being non-factual.

Predictable? Perhaps. But do you mean predictable that a cynical post would elicit a comment that it is cynical or that JL sees cynicism everywhere he looks?

Lebowski's view of the post?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJTonrzXTJs

versus Sleeping's view of the post?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

[Jeff Lebowski]

This isn't the first time JL has accused me of cynicism--and the accusation simply isn't the reality. I'm not cynical. I'm an optimistic guy who finds a great amount of joy in life. I play guitar, I go to church, I have fun with friends, I watch old movies, I try not to take things too seriously. When JL tries to interact with me as though I'm Funk he does both of us a disservice.

In this instance, my point is that family law is a significant disincentive for men to marry. JL should apologize for suggesting that I only "married out of religious guilt" or that "society at large" is conspiring to destroy me "at any moment." Those are distortions of what I said and a smart guy like you must realize that.

Good grief. Lighten up, Francis. You throw out a provocatively worded post like that and then get upset if anyone expresses a little surprise?

I hope you have a thicker skin in your professional life.

[Bo Diddley]

This thread might be due for a name change. TIA

[Donuthole]

This thread might be due for a name change. TIA

Yeah, JL needs to take the last 5 pages and create a "How Rape Thou Art: Mormonism, BYU and Latter-Day Rape Culture" thread.

[falafel]

Is Mesquite the next Waco? Cattle battle going down here in Nevada!

http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/ranc...cattle-roundup

Bringing this thread (almost) full circle, a mistrial was declared in the first Bundy case today. Bundy himself wasn't a defendant in this case. Instead, it was a conspiracy charge against 6 men who allegedly acted as gunmen. 2 other guys were convicted.

Cliven Bundy's trial is set for June 26.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/b...standoff-case/