Leaderboard

Hmm. Me, I like a little inflammatory-ness now and then--if it's not deliberately insulting, and if it ultimately leads me to think. On the "buying cigarettes" thing--my takeaway from it is that any time society makes a law, we need to remember that there will be resistors, and that the law--all laws--ultimately will have to be enforced by the threat of deadly force. If we don't like lethal force being deployed against the lawbreakers, maybe we should consider whether the law is worth having in the first place rather than rage against the hired guns who--at the end of the day--are basically doing what we, as a society, specifically instructed them to do; and often putting their own lives on the line in the process.

With respect, the above seems to contain quite a bit of doubletalk. It is self-contradictory to insist that repressive social mores about sexuality make it more difficult for (for lack of a better term, and I don't mean this as a pejorative) "confused" youths to engage in the sort of experimentation you seem to think necessary in order for them to find themselves and figure out who they really are; while similarly arguing that these same "confused" youths are already experimenting sexually with the same frequency that they would if those social mores were to be completely eradicated. It is also self-contradictory to make arguments that reduce to "we would never do that--but when we do do it, you'll totally have it coming." And frankly, the gay rights movement seems to have been much more interested in validating homosexuality as behavior rather than homosexuality as an orientation. That, I think, is why Josh Weed, and that "My Husband is Not Gay" show, and the entire concept of homosexuals who remain celibate or even reconcile themselves to straight relationships, elicit such scorn even when the homosexuals involved are clearly happy with their lives--because, in the eyes of the movement, the life choices of homosexuals are only valid if those choices lead towards certain actions. It's not about gay people. It's about gay sexual relationships--and what the broader society is and isn't allowed to do, say, or think about them.

LP, when you say patently false and outrageous things like that a man was killed by police for selling cigarettes, then yes, you are being inflammatory.

Brother, I get what you're saying, I see it from your point of view, and I'm asking you to take a moment to see it from mine. There is just no reason why someone committing a crime so minor as selling cigarettes (which, IMHO shouldn't even be a crime but whatever...) should be dead as a direct result of contact with the police over it. We have agreed that they didn't go in with the intent to kill him, and we've agreed that he didn't deserve to die, so that covers the salient aspects. The point I'm making here is that the police escalated the level of the confrontation to the point where a life was lost. Mr. Garner did not escalate it, the police did. As a direct result of that escalation, a man is dead. Period. Now, I don't know if you were unaware or if it's a typo in your post, but the situation where Mr. Garner died after selling cigarettes in New York City is an entirely separate incident from Mr. Gray being killed after doing nothing in Baltimore. The incident with Mr. Garner was certainly a factor in increasing the frustration felt by the protesters in Baltimore, but they are separate incidents that we're talking about here. Your post seems to overlap the two. Back to the situation with Mr. Garner. He was selling single cigarettes. Yes, the cops didn't show up and blow him away for selling cigarettes. WE GET IT, BRAH. You've made your point on that and the horse is quite dead, I assure you. Nobody has even disputed that point. What we're saying is that the NYPD needlessly escalated the level of force, over an extremely minor infraction, to the point where a man died. So from where I'm sitting, he was killed over selling cigarettes. Whether that was the intent of the cops on the scene or not, he died because he was selling cigarettes. So if we're arguing the question of "He died over selling cigarettes" being equivalent to "he was killed for selling cigarettes" well that's an argument of semantics. Yes, the two sentences do have differing implications, but I assure you, we are all adults here and we know the difference. I believe both LP and I have been sufficiently clear on acknowledging that difference.

I agree. One of my favorite hypotheticals re sexual-orientation-based discrimination in commerce--and one that, as far as I know, no gay rights activist will engage--is, what do you do in a jurisdiction where prostitution is legal? Can a female prostitute legally offer her services to a male, whilst denying them to a female? "Born that way" has gotten a lot of mileage for those who have been trying to get legal protection for homosexual behavior; but once they've outlawed marriage discrimination and commercial discrimination--look for them to start demonizing private discrimination. The "consensus" will shift away from the idea as homosexuality as an inborn, genetic, immutable trait. Rather, it will become common wisdom that sexual orientation is actually highly flexible and that experimentation with gay sex--even by self-described "straight" adolescents and young adults--is actually a normal, healthy, and perhaps even necessary part of the sexual maturation process.

Who is discriminating here? Is Joe unconstitutionally discriminating for proposing to Sue over Tom? I would certainly hope not! If that's the case, then the precedent (something supreme courts consider alongside constitutionality) is set for HR-style lawsuits because my proposal to Jim Richman was denied, but not any of the advances of Shirley, Jane, or Sue. It's systematic with him, and the evidence is clear that I've been robbed of a lobster dinner at the least, and a lavish lifestyle at most. Or is it the state that's discriminating based on gender? Not entirely. The State is considering the couple as a pair. They are, if you will, an unlicensed corporation seeking State recognition and benefits. If we want to play the discrimination game, the state should turn down any request for a marriage license that is not comprised at least 50% of women (although these rules on the corporate level are usually driven by regulation - not law or constitution). This is great for gay women but not for gay men women seeking marriage.

When you make statements like the bolded above, you are saying that the police officer (s) made a deliberate, willful decision....this guy is selling loosies, so I am going to kill him for doing that. You are deliberately using inflammatory language to paint an extreme and distorted view of what happened.

Pam!! My mind must be blind. I have seen people die from smoking related diseases, one of whom was paid more on the job ... if he did not smoke. Yes, the raise with the knowledge that money is being spent on cigarettes is what is known as ... enabling. dc

Yes, I think we do agree on the salient aspects. I believe I can understand your point of view, which is that a man was shot dead by a police officer for no good reason in a confrontation that began with a trivial offense. No, you're right. This is inattentiveness on my part and getting the situations conflated. Unhappily, both men's last names began with "G", and people in general tend to glide over names and just remember the first letter when reading a narrative. (This is actually an issue among authors of fiction, and there have been many discussions on how to name characters such that the reader will actually remember the character's name. The current consensus seems to be, Hope your reader is a careful enough reader to actually take the time to understand the name. In the news stories, I was not sufficiently careful. Sorry.) Google "killed for selling cigarettes", read the first dozen or so of the resulting articles, then return here and tell me in all honesty and with a straight face that putting the issue in those terms does not falsely color the perception of what happened. Of course it does. Or are you okay with the hypothetical anti-Mormons claiming we worship Satan, then dismissing objections by arguing that the literal falseness of the statement is utterly beside the point?

Consider this: - "Mormons worship Satan!" - "No, Mormons do not worship Satan. They worship Christ." - "Well, they worship a DIFFERENT Christ, not the one I worship!" - "That may be the case, but the point is that Mormons don't worship Satan." - "Now you're just arguing semantics." The man was manifestly NOT killed for selling cigarettes. Yes, it does. But I'm not a cop. I am quite sure that the cops didn't come into the situation armed to the teeth because they were afraid someone might try to illegally sell them some cigarettes. I am sure that preparation was taken based on previous experience, which taught them that any situation, even cigarette selling, might turn dangerous. So the cops may well have been 100% wrong on this, but they STILL did not kill the man for selling cigarettes. Then thirteen million people died over the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. No, that's more than an absurd oversimplification. It's untrue. Thirteen million people were not killed over Ferdinand's assassination. That was a triggering event, not the reason for what happened. I don't know if Freddie Gray was a "thug". In this context, I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean. It's clear he had a lengthy criminal record, including arrests for: March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous SubstanceMarch 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assaultJanuary 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassingJanuary 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distributeDecember 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distributeDecember 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substanceAugust 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassingJanuary 25, 2014: Possession of marijuanaSeptember 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escapeApril 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probationJuly 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distributeMarch 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substanceMarch 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distributeFebruary 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substanceAugust 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probationAugust 28, 2007: Possession of marijuanaAugust 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substanceJuly 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)Most of these are drug charges, and you may think that drug charges "don't count". But note that several of them are much more serious, including assault and burglary. I also acknowledge that arrests do not equate to guilt. But do you really think the Baltimore cops had it in for some random guy on the street so much that they repeatedly arrested him for no reason just because they could? Look, as far as I can glean from the little bit of reading I've done, Freddie Gray was a man born into a harsh situation who coped as best he could. It is not obvious to me that he was violent or cruel. He participated in the drug culture into which he was born and raised; hard to fault him too much for that. It is tragic that he was killed, and if he was killed wrongfully, his killers should be dealt with accordingly. But to say he was "killed for selling cigarettes" is a misrepresentation of what happened. Whatever went on that led to Freddie Gray's death, it's clear he was not killed for selling cigarettes. Or do you think if he had been arrested the way he was for a completely different reason, but under identical circumstances, he would therefore not have been killed? Freddie Gray's killing was a result of poor police training, or a hothead cop, or a deadly misunderstanding, or something he did that we know nothing about that led to his killing, or something else completely. Or more likely a combination of many such factors. But the salient point in his death was not that he was selling cigarettes, as if anyone illegally selling cigarettes is in imminent danger of being shot to death by a cop. This is not a mere pedantic point of niggly hyper-correctness; it's an attempt to portray events meaningfully.

Stopped, not shot. This is not difficult. Killed for selling cigarettes: "Hey, look, that dude is selling cigs!" BLAM This may well be true. He still was not killed "for selling cigarettes". That is a false and inflammatory statement. Note that it would not be inflammatory if it were true. It would then merely be a true description of an outrageous act. But of course, it is not true. It is at best a false description of an outrageous act -- the key word being "false". If the action of the police was so egregiously awful, why do you need to lie about it to make it sound even worse? Just say what actually happened. This is absurd. You're saying the police officers ACCIDENTALLY killed a man for selling cigarettes. The man was STOPPED for selling cigarettes. The situation then degenerated and the man was killed -- perhaps wrongly. Maybe he was even murdered by the police. But he was not killed for selling cigarettes. To maintain that is a false description of what happened.

If I were a Bishop and found out someone I was helping with the Lords money was buying smokes with his own money ......I would be upset. The Lords money is sacred. My opinion.

This is like a wonderfully condensed version of a post elsewhere I read yesterday. Guy had the same philosophy. Why use deadly force against non-life-threatening criminals? If they escape and keep breaking the law, police will cross their paths again. Now, the guy understood having to make judgment calls in grey areas, but still felt the bar could be raised a bit. He said if the police had to stop a truly violent criminal for the greater good they could do what they had to do and he would stand behind them 100%. But the other stuff? Why bother? Get 'em next time.

Question for Supreme Court nominees who have already been on the bench at a lower level: When was the last time you felt that the Constitution, or existing statute, led you to make a ruling that you found personally repugnant? Anyone who can't point to such an incident within the past two years, is unqualified for the Court.

Lots of good advice on this thread. Especially the part about if you tell the bishop, then it's time to drop it. That means you stop thinking about it. That means, the next time you see the guy smoking and talking about receiving welfare, you don't wonder when the bishop is going to take action. You don't start thinking up things the bishop should be doing, and then getting upset when you see them not happening. [Not saying italianstallion would do any of this. Just saying I see people doing this all the time. It's hard to pass along information and just stop paying attention.]

Financially, we all are in different situations and at times may require assistance from the Church. If you gave this individual a raise to help financially then you possibly have an obligation to inform his bishop. My experience, each bishop handles finances very differently, and your insight might be an answer to a prayer he has been inquiring the Lord about. As a saying goes in our Stake, as given by G.A.'s, "Information proceeds revelation." Not an exact quote. Once you have informed the bishop though, Beefche is correct, it is no longer a concern of yours. The information is now in the mind and heart of him who is responsible and has stewardship over the financial assistance of the ward your employee resides in.

I think what Night is trying to say is that if someone needs the Church to help them by paying their electric bill, that frees up funds from their paycheck to buy cigarettes, when they may possibly have been able to pay that particular bill themselves if they didn't smoke.

Having been someone who had to ask for help such as this person in the past, never was I ever just given funds to go out and purchase the things I needed. If it was food I was sent to the Bishop's storehouse. If I needed help paying rent or utilities, a check was made out directly to those organizations. But again, I was never just given funds to do with as I pleased. So I'm not sure if it is necessary to bring it up to the Bishop.

Hi it is very funny that you put a picture of a stuffed big foot. When I was little I saw a plush Bigfoot at a yard sale and it was one of those "I've got to have it" moments. I ran home and emptied out my piggy bank and ran back. I had hidden the plush toy so no one would take it. When I got back the toy was gone and I was upset. Then the lady who owned it came to me and said she took it and put it aside and although I didn't have enough money for it she still let me have it for whatever I had. It was probably like $2 or something I don't remember. I loved it and took the thing wherever I went. I am all grown up now and still have it. I don't take it everywhere anymore, but it still has a special place in my heart. So yeah, when coming up with a name I saw old Ted sitting there in a corner and Stuffedbigfoot it is.

Yes, I've seen a guitar in Sacrament meeting. I found this performance... Love it.