Leaderboard

When did "Do you have kids?" Become a rude, insulting or blunt question?

Sorry I took so long to get back to your question mnn2501. I've had AP exams for the past few weeks. 😅 It was Sooooo much better than I imagined it would be. My bishop was new and I didn't know him very well so I was very very nervous but he acted so kind and considerate I don't know what I was expecting because I should know that bishop's roles are to be like that. He spent a long time getting to know me before I told him anything which really helped my nerves and he even expressed to me his own "overwellmness" by all of the many bishops tasks and laughed about it. He made me feel safe and comfortable and was very understanding when talking me through things. I felt the peace I wanted after it was over and I know I did the right thing. Having this experience has really strengthened my testimony on the leaders of the church. It honestly was my first interaction with confessing to the bishop and I was going in relying on the extreme stories told to me by others and overthought the entire thing. Thank you for all reassuring me. I will definitely know better next time to just trust and talk to my bishop.

Well, hang on a sec. First we’re told “you’re causing an environmental catastrophe; you must quit using straws!”, and I point out that the catastrophe is apparently coming from Chinese straws, not American ones; and the only reply is “well, you don’t need straws, anyways”? When a discussion plays out in this way, it sort of makes paranoid, crunchy conservatives (like me) wonder whether the environment isn’t just a pretext for people who are predisposed to get their kicks and goggles by making other folks obey a bunch of rules that are, in fact, more or less arbitrary. If my straws are out floating in the middle of the Pacific, show me how they’re winding up there and not in a landfill in Lindon, Utah with the rest of my trash. And if it’s just a matter of being wasteful generally—shouldn’t we be starting with all those Hollywood types with their multiple houses on different continents (which they are perpetually renovating) and their jetting themselves off to various social events at which they give themselves awards for being environmentally conscious? As Professor Glenn Reynolds says, I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis start living like it’s a crisis. Otherwise, this sort of environmentalism is just a modified feudalistic ideology that keeps the hoi polloi from getting uppity (your family doesn’t NEED that second car!) whilst exalting the elite (my private jet takes me to Cannes every year, where I give a thirty-second talk that saves rainforests and teach ladies of the night about safe copulation practices!)

Only if you are being clueless about how they are responding... While I grant there are clueless people... clueless people should not make entire topics forbidden. 'Getting to know you conversations' are give and take events...If you ask someone "Do you have kids" They respond. Usually they will respond in great detail with what they are comfortable with, and then your response is based on their response. If you start hitting monosyllabic responses "Yes", "No" etc you are losing them. (either a sensitive area or lack of interest) and you should adjust accordingly.

This is a completely fair point, and perhaps because of mortal weakness this is something that those who need to adjust the most are the least likely to do. It seems to be that there are legitimate snowflakes running around being offended at everything and legitimate bullies out there bringing everyone down. There might not be much hope for these. As for those of us who don't go around looking to be offended or trying to be obnoxious jerks there is hope that we can all do better at finding middle ground and recognizing that the person asking us questions we'd prefer they didn't means no ill intent and also perhaps those who go around prying into people's personal lives can also learn to better recognize when a relationship is deep enough to go to such places.

Okay, sorry, I should honestly leave this thread alone because it's fine for people to have their own opinions and perspectives about things I write, but I do think this is misinterpreting the article and taking that quote somewhat out of context. This is written for an everyday member of the Church; obviously, if someone is in your stewardship and you feel prompted to ask this question, that's a completely different matter and you should always follow the Spirit. I'm not sending this article out as a statement to bishops and Relief Society presidents throughout the world; rather, I'm saying — as I mentioned previously — that we should think twice before we ask people such personal questions. Likewise, I'm not suggesting to members, "You should choose to take offense when people ask you sensitive questions! Get your pitchforks and torches ASAP!" but I am trying to promote sensitivity toward an issue that is difficult for many people for a variety of reasons. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "Hey, let's be more sensitive and aware of others." I think people (in general, not you specifically, because I think you approached this in a tactful, respectful way) are quick to point the finger and say, "YOU'RE TAKING OFFENSE, YOU SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE!" without doing some introspection and saying, "Is there something I can learn from this? Is there a way that I can be more sensitive to others?" Yes, people should strive to not be offended, but people should also strive to not BE an offender.

Two responses: It's always fun to point and laugh at people for being stupid, though we ourselves are often those people. But before deriding such folks or despairing at the imbecilic condition of humanity, we would do well to have a clear-eyed view of what's going on. And what's going on is this: Not everyone is familiar with standard terminology. Most of us here on this forum know that "Arabic numerals" mean those numerals descended to us from Arabic (actually originally Indian) origin—that is, our standard numerals. But many, especially of the younger generation, have never learned this. Guess what? This term is not born with us into our brains. If people haven't learned it, that's ignorance indeed. But it's not cause to despair for humanity, but rather to decry the conditions of our public education (and maybe an indication of reasons to strongly consider homeschooling our children rather than farm that important duty out to all-too-often incompetent teachers). Note that "John Dick" considers such ignorance a "testament to American bigotry". I rather suppose that his statement is a testament to leftist bigotry and an excuse to put himself on his Rameumptom and laugh scornfully at those stupid trailer-park idiots who don't share his exalted knowledge that "Arabic numerals" means regular numerals. Because it's not bigotry. Do you think American children should be taught traditional Chinese numbers? No? What sort of disgusting bigot are you, anyway? Or could it be that John Dick is a liar, and this is simply a matter of ignorance of terminology and has nothing to do with bigotry? Jerk. According to my oft-mentioned Arabic friend in grad school, he could not understand why we called the Indian-developed numerals "Arabic numerals". By his reckoning as a real, honest-to-goodness Arab, here are the Arabic numerals: Do you think this should be standard fare for our students? Ought we all to have our children learn the all-important modern Arabic numerals? Obviously, this is what many people thought they were talking about. And just as obviously, there is no good reason for most of our children to be required to learn this. This idiot Dick is a bigot, and I despise him and those of his ilk. I have little doubt that this puddle of vomit will make the rounds in the general news, if it isn't already, and give people (especially leftists) more reason to mock and deride others and more fodder for their claims of "intolerance", when this particular thing is no such example at all. Makes me want to puke on them. Lord, come quickly and save us from such liars.

Way to miss the point and be insulting all at the same time... If your goal is to reduce the number of straws in the Great Pacific Garbage patch... then you need to find out where those straws are coming from. If those straws are coming from @Just_A_Guy throwing his straws away in Lindon UT. Then taking @Just_A_Guy straws away is a good idea and we can also work on stopping the migration of straws from Lindon to the Pacific. If however the straws are coming from bad garbage practices in the Far East... They we waste our time trying to stop @Just_A_Guy from using straws because it does nothing to solve the stated problem... A good leader learns what causes a problem and then works to fix the problem. This is what America needs to be... A poor leader "does something" just to say they have "done something" and accomplish leaders this is what America currently has... And con men and huskers lead people into giving them money for empty promises This is how many of the Crisis experts come across as.

New Hampshire doesn't have sales taxes nor wage taxes. People from border towns of Massachusetts and Maine buy stuff in New Hampshire. I usually buy boxes of jellies and jams in NH when I'm in the New England area because they're super cheap and tax free.

Hi Alemmedial, how old are you?

I get where your coming from. I avidly study military history. Which means every time I watch a movie with a battle scene, and the two armies just run screaming at each other, no tactics, no formations, no attempt at ruses or deception, (Braveheart comes to mind) it does the same thing to me. It's one reason why I like the movie Gettysburg. While it doesn't have accurate artillery strikes (in the 1860's there were far more cannon balls used than explosive shells by artillery, but that would have been hard to film in the early 90's) they actually do a pretty good job of showing the things I mentioned because most of the extras were legitimate American Civil War re-enactors and knew what they were doing. As an aside, I don't practice martial arts although I think they are awesome, but I can't stop myself from laughing when the hero is attacked by 1 bad guy at a time while surrounded.

I really enjoyed that movie as a kid. I might still, but haven't seen it as an adult. Having trained in a variety of martial arts in my youth I really enjoyed martial arts movies. Having focused more on pure self defense as an adult, most action scenes are somewhat ruined for me because it seems apparent too many opportunities to resolve the struggle are wasted in the name of entertainment. Sword fights that are supposed to be struggles to the death using wasted strikes like punching with the hilt of the sword or kicking someone over when it could have just as easily been a death blow among other similar themes just irritate me a little these days. The quest might stand the test of time for me though because it's supposed to be showcasing different styles in a tournament, so it's understandable if they're not using the most effective means to the end because it should be against the rules and may not fit the style being trained. I haven't checked out the bad reviews, but I'd venture a guess that some of them are because of feuds over what style should have prevailed.

The Quest, a martial arts movie with Jean Claude Van Damme. It's currently rocking a 13% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I've watched it multiple times and I think it's a really fun movie. It's not perfect by any means, but I like it a lot.

My father the WWII infantry sgt., absolutely loved MASH. My earliest memories are of me bringing him a beer and listening to him laugh as he watched the show. He was particularly fond of the nurses, and the role they played as doing what they were told, and otherwise were useful for pursuing as sex playthings. (Apart from Hot Lips Houlihan, who he swore at whenever she was on screen.) He was a dying breed, and his very normal pre 1980's beliefs about women seem to have mostly died out of the middle class. Later when I went to college, I found myself in the classroom of a liberal feminist who was singing the praises of Alan Alda as a respecter of women. I told her a few things about MASH, and she was shocked.

It's more than just children dying in this regard that doesn't. Any one who lives any longer than anyone else has theoretical advantage/disadvantage. The man who live to 18, under his parent's roof, never being exposed to evil, and therefore never having the same temptations, has advantage over the 30 year old who, after the same childhood, joined the military and was thereupon exposed to [insert temptations]...whereupon he dies in his sins, but another lives past that to gain a family of his own, repenting of those wild oat moments, and becomes a good man. Not to mention some being born into good families, some into bad, etc. It all seems unfair. But we know it will not be.

What does your direct supervisor say?

I grew up in a small town where everyone went to the same baptist church and everyone knew everyone else's business so I am kind of used to people not keeping questions to themselves but it was never an issue for people to have one child. I just don't understand the issue of having one child at all. I feel like if I tell someone at church I don't want anymore kids they will think there is something wrong with me

The two issues the come immediately to mind here, are: 1) The above, sort of indulges in the fantasy that SCOTUS acts—or could act—in a moral vacuum. When in fact, it was their own notion of “morality” that told them that a woman has a right to sex without the consequences burdens that nature has long associated with sex. 2) If indeed defending the rights of disenfranchised minorities is a crucial role of SCOTUS (I’m still inclined to agree that it can be, but am intrigued by and still processing arguments that the entire notion of judicial review creates more problems than it solves)—SCOTUS failed miserably. Restrictive abortion statutes themselves already protected one disempowered interest group (the unborn) against a more powerful and traditionally exploitable group (their mothers); just as individual free-state antebellum laws protected their black residents and visitors against southern slavers Like Dred Scott before it, Roe sold out the weakest by re-interpreting the struggle as one between the moderately powerful (women/southern slaveholders) against the very powerful (men in legislature/numerically superior northern states) who, rather than standing up for the genuinely helpless (as they in fact were, in both cases) were slandered as cynically depriving the moderately powerful of their natural and undeniable human rights. Both legal opinions deployed a line of reasoning that defined away the humanity of the truly helpless (unborn/blacks), in order to benefit the Court’s well-connected pet interest group and twist the tail of political adversaries the Court already disliked. A supreme tribunal of robed elders, tasked with defending the weak against the strong, may work in Zion; but it falls flat in Babylon where the hireling Noachian priests are likely to be as black-hearted as the next man.

There is a world of difference between a fetus that is not (or potentially not ) viable because of birth defects. And a fetus that is not viable because it has not had enough time... The later has a very easy and clear 'fix' the former does not.

@MarginOfError, it strikes me that you're trying to inject relative moralism into government/law. Well law cannot really work that way in that law is the codification of morality. for example: JaG implies (jokingly) that because HE personally believes using drinking straws is not "wrong" they shouldn't be banned. But, of course, the reason such bans are put in place is because people in power in certain places believe using them is wrong. But you seem to be implying that if JaG believes using straws to not be wrong and you believe using straws to be wrong, that you both ought to be able to legally get your way. So tell me, how can using drinking straws be both legal and illegal?

Indeed Tax the straws and the USA will stop using straws and then we can prove that none of them in the pacific are ours... Of course the Tax man will demand another source and see that foam cups are also there. So they we tax those instead So we stop them which gets another target and so on and so forth.. And the USA then spends its leadership in a internal game of Avoid the Taxes... the rest of the world continues on and nothing is done about the trash in the pacific

Rush Limbaugh: “No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.” Philadelphia: “Hold my (root) beer and watch this!”

Sure. And let’s also impose a $1500 surtax on abortions for pregnancies that don’t threaten the mother’s life and aren’t a result of rape or incest. We’ll use that money for a study of why women actually get abortions.

I laughed, just for your last paragraph. But I think you’ll need to come to Utah to witness the full force of those protests first-hand. You don’t get between those Utah Mormon housewives and their scrapbooking—someone’s liable to get hurt! As for the rest . . . Color me unconvinced, until you can show that I’m actually causing the problem. Good on the Mexicans for protecting their coral reefs; but I’m still not sure what corporate or natural process is carrying my drinking straws from Utah Valley to Cabo San Lucas.

If all you are going to do is insult and twist the meanings of people who are trying to have a discussion with you I see no point in continuing

Well, for Mexico, I know the concern was less about the garbage patch and more about the damage to the local coral reefs. But yes, small acts can add up to large effects. And they can be worthwhile pursuits. But the argument, "the impact from small changes to my lifestyle won't be large enough to justify my personal inconvenience" don't get much sympathy from me. (Although I do empathize, because it's precisely the reason I hypocritically still drive a car to work). And for what it's worth, yes, let's ban scrapbooking. If only because I want to see what kind of people show up at the protests.

That’s fair; but do we need to be Number One in meaningless, token gestures of virtue that don’t solve the problem; or in responding lemming-like to crises that aren’t crises? Vis a vis straws, wherein lies the crisis that we, as Americans, are supposed to be responding to? —The crisis is the Great Pacific Garbage patch. —If it’s CO2 emissions—my footprint, with or without straws, is several hundred times less than most of the elitist jokers who think I (but not they) should live like this: To those folks I think it’s fair to say: you, first. —If it’s misuse of petroleum restricted to make plastic: all the straws I use in a year don’t have as much mass as one plastic picture frame; and I’ve (well, Just_A_Girl, really) got dozens of those in my home. Why don’t we ban plastic picture frames? Heck, now that everything’s digital, why don’t we ban photographs, and scrapbooking? Because, however did people remember their loved ones before photographs? Again—if it’s really causing a crisis, and there are proportional and logically consistent ways that I can help with it—great. But when it’s just a bunch of do-gooders saying “it really doesn’t matter whether you’re harming anyone or not; the fact is simply that YOU don't need THAT”—most of us spent most of kindergarten dealing with these puffed up, power-tripping princelings; and I’m not particularly eager to kiss the rings of, and subject the minutiae of my own and my family's lives to a bunch of jumped-up latter-day lunch line monitors (“Oh my gorsh. Your toe is a whole QUARTER INCH off the line. You’re reported. Teacher! TEEEEEEA-CHER!!!!”)

Well, that escalated quickly . . . Can we agree that Jesus *did* appear privately to Paul and to John the Revelator after His ascension to Heaven, in such a way as not to constitute His Second Coming? If we do agree on that, then why did John bother to write his experience down; and why did Paul bother to tell others what he had seen? Why not just tell Jesus “hey, if you want everyone to know what You told me—do it Yourself”?

Why should we care??? Because if you want us to be a "Leader" and solve problems... the very first step is to understand the problem and it cause

Garments are discussed in the temple. And we keep that stuff sacred and don't talk about it outside the temple. Additionally, many of us aren't exactly scholars at what we're supposed to keep private and what we can talk about, so some of us err on the side of caution, some of us can get a bit heated, etc. Finally, most of us are acquainted with people antagonistic to our faith, who have no problem with mocking our temple practices, so some of us can start out on the defensive. You've been stepping politely through this subject, but we don't really discuss this stuff outside the temple, or at least outside temple-attending groups.

Just as soon as the Church assigns everyone to the building closest to them. If Jesus hates the environment so much that he wants minivans driving extra miles, just who do you think you are to reduce waste?

I simply want to say is that I was impressed with this man's presentation. It was factually accurate, devoid of bias, and spot on the problems we currently experience every day in the Western Interconnection, Eastern Interconnection, and in Ercot with integrating renewable power sources. The grid is a very complicated system that most people don't understand. He did a great job explaining the core elements and why integrating renewables is difficult. Oh, just one other thing - the 10-30% number is indeed accurate, but it represents a capacity factor. A solar panel may be producing electricity from 8AM to 8PM, but the capacity factor is different than just the time spent producing. Capacity factors represent how much energy it produces in that time compared to the total it could have produced. Example: A 1MW capacity solar farm produces 0.5MW on a clear day in the winter for 12 hours. The capacity factor would be = (0.5MW*12hours)/(1MW*24hours) = 25%. If anyone has specific nuclear or real-world grid questions I'd be glad to try to answer them.

Back when we were in our active baby-making days, my wife would get seriously irritated at casual Church friends and acquaintances asking us about our reproductive plans. Given this, I have a hard time skewering the author; my wife might have written a similar article. But I no longer agree with the mindset. I think we should actively seek to build such societal intimacy, even at the cost of having to come outside our comfort zone. That doesn't mean that our private lives become an open book or that we must actually answer such intrusive questions, only that we react gracefully to such intrusions, seeing them as a perhaps ham-fisted attempt at building friendship and emotional unity.

Prove you wrong? I don’t know that I can. But part of me wonders what lesson can be learned from this event if your interpretation is correct. Maybe just satisfy the readers need for “justice”. I like to think that he truly was righteous and was honestly seeking to know what more he ought to do. And secondly, I like to think that he did give away his riches, the account says that he only left upset, but says nothing about his ultimate decision. I chose to believe this because it is symbolic of what we all go through. We all feel like we are doing well, but always have one step we need to take that we don’t want to. It feels more motivating to think that the rich young ruler succeeded in his endeavor to give away his riches. Maybe I can too

I don’t know that I’d be quite that harsh on the young man. But there does seem to be a certain amount of myopia involved; this kid thinks he can earn his salvation without the help of a mediator, if only some trustworthy rabbi will come along and tell him exactly what to do. The commandments he says he keeps are commandments 5-9–the parts of the Decalogue that deal with loving others—and I’m OK taking him more or less at face value. But there’s a huge blind spot in his obedience, for he says nothing about his observance of the first four commandments—the ones that focus on the individual’s relationship with God Himself. So Christ answers in-kind: You want stuff to do? Fine, I’ll give you stuff to do . . . more and more and more, until it breaks you; and then maybe you’ll stop to think about whether you might benefit from a Savior. Christ’s additional remarks as recorded in the extended narrative of Matthew 19-20 reinforce this theme—you can’t do everything alone, and if you just go through life in a hollow attempt to dot i’s and cross t’s, eventually you will break as this young man broke when Christ told him what perfect legalistic obedience actually required; and our eternal reward has less to do with what we accomplished than with whether or not we ultimately came into communion with the Supreme Lawgiver.

#Metoo has had its problems; but I think it worth noting that young men who keep the Law of Chastity are mostly (not entirely, but mostly) safe from the sorts of false allegations that the movement has tended to engender. My concern with #metoo has more to do with the victim-mentality and sense of irresponsibility it fosters in my daughters, rather than the legal risk it poses to my sons. In the case of a legal rape-exception to an abortion ban this is even more so, since under such a regimen DNA testing of the baby can exonerate the alleged father. Fatherhood and false rape allegations are two of the occupational hazards of being sexually promiscuous; and they are so easily avoidable that I think it’s worth a few churls having to hire lawyers in order to avoid forcing honest-to-gosh rape victims to give birth in cases where doing so would inflict additional trauma. As for the Alabama law—I haven’t read it and have no idea whether its content is being accurately reported. If it is, I can only shake my head. There’s a legal maxim that “hard cases make bad law”, and SCOTUS isn’t going to overturn Roe for the sake of an abortion regulatory scheme that forces a ten-year-old rape victim to carry her baby to term.

I would hope you have a wall around your house. Otherwise, you might do better to call it a pavilion.