Leaderboard

So I sat with my kids this afternoon and we played Life. For those who haven't heard of it (all 3 of you) it's the boardgame where you go through "life" with a job, income, kids, buying a house, etc. The object of the game is to retire with the highest amount of money. So my daughter ended he game with almost $2M and 1 kid. She won. I ended the game with... less money than that and also had 1 kid. My son also had less money, and he had 6 (count 'em) 6 kids. He had so many kids he needed a second car game piece to tote them all around. So my daughter announced that she had won. (Which is true, by the game rules.) But then a thought occurred to me, which I shared with them. Her in-game persona will end the game of life with just one child to say farewell. The same went for me. But my son... his in-game self would pass on with an entire room full of people who love him. I think the game rules have the wrong victory conditions.

I haven't, but I have many people in my life who have grappled at dealing with trauma of various kinds. A few things they (and the literature) tells me: - The brain can take time to process this stuff. Sometimes it needs to 'bounce around' in your brain a while before it finds its way to your long term memory. Can't make it happen faster than it'll happen. - Verbalizing helps. Not just typing it out, but putting the story into your voice box and sending them out your mouth. Not reading from a script, but putting your thoughts/memories/feelings into real audible words. - Support helps. Especially when the support has had something similar happen. Exactly like what you're searching for here on this thread. You got this Fether. Give it 48 hours, then a week, then a month. Tell us how you're progressing through it.

Let's hear it for the Irish - straight, white, Christian, male.... historically persecuted in Europe, the USA, and Canada... in the USA would have the same rights as an androsexual, black, wiccan, transman... in Canada would have less rights than everybody else.

For those of you who asked for the update, we're having a little boy.

Makes sense, but just doesn't sit well with me. I guess I will not be moving to Canada anytime soon.

Here's the nuance: The things I listed were violence committed by Left-Wingers against Right-Wingers due to the fact that they are Right-Wing. It is not a specific issue they are against, it's a political narrative promoted by a specific political party or an attack against a specific affiliation (for example: attacking a person because he's wearing a MAGA hat). Not Right-wing nor Republican attacking Left-wing or Democrat. This is a Property Rights issue between a Family and the Federal Government. The Fed Govt just happened to be presided by a Democrat at the time. I don't think it would have mattered if the Fed Govt was presided by a Republican. This property rights issue is not an issue that stemmed from a Right-Wing political rhetoric narrative running at the time such as the Dallas Police Shooting. It was a specific event that affected specific ranchers. In any case, no violence was committed by the ranchers against the Feds or anybody else. This was not Right-Wing versus Left-Wing either unless you're going to posit that an attack based on one's religious convictions is right-wing. That would be highly skewed in light of Islamic Jihadists' toppling of the Twin Towers. Dunno what this is. Not a Right-Wing versus Left-Wing either. If you're going to posit White Nationalists are Right-Wingers like the Media likes to do, then you're going to have to explain why the KKK are Democrats. Something is going on in Las Vegas. This incident, along with the Vegas massacre at a country music concert... are all memory holed. All of the information coming out of these things are flimsy, conjecture, lacking in any tangible facts. Conspiracy theories run amok. So yeah, right-wingers point to the Vegas massacre at a country music festival as left-wing motivated and the Vegas police officers shooting as right-wing motivated. You can posit it's a CIA operation and you'd have the same credibility as the news coming out of those things. Do you agree that Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing? Do you agree that Trump supporters are getting kicked out of restaurants, dox'd and their businesses threatened to be closed down, rioted against, with the political left and the news media doing synchronized monster painting not just against President Trump but Trump supporters as well? Do you believe that the same is happening against Democrats?

What is the exact line where one should be deemed mentally unstable? Who makes that determination? Can such a designation be appealed and/or rescinded and what would be necessary to do so, and how long would it take?

It is interesting how one 30 second event can change so much. Prior to July 4 of this year, I loved dogs and rarely got nervous around them. If a giant Rottweiler charged me, my natural reaction would be “oh good boy! You wanna play!?” Well 2 months ago a co-worker is mine asked me to watch his 2 Pit-bulls. Now I use to love pits, I had a neighbor growing up that had 2 wonderful pits that I enjoyed playing with. I met them and I took them for a walk. Everything was fine. For the next two days I went over and made sure they were fed and taken care of. Well on the third day, 4th of July, I walked in as usual, but this time they were freaking out more. I got to the middle of the house and one of them bit my on the leg. Was not a major bite at all considering what a pit is known for doing, no blood was even drawn, but I knew I needed out. Well that first bite signaled to the other out that biting was now an option and she started biting at my feet. I ended having to fight my way out as I jumped around them and pushed my way to the door. It clicked for me later that they were probably in a little panic mode due to fire works having gone off throughout the day. Now... two months later, I still can’t fall asleep at night without playing those events back in my mind. My anxiety jumps whenever I hear a dog. I use to be able to walk into my aunt’s house just fine, but I can’t get myself to do it due to her tiny Schnauzer barking. I will likely try and see a counselor here soon for help. To me, the whole thing is silly, it was not a dog attack by any means, no scar, I am completely fine and I have a sweet story to tell and an awesome bruise picture I can pass around to prove it... But I am completely unable to be around dogs now. Had anyone else every dealt with this? What techniques have you used to get over trauma like this?

Thanks, I’m pretty comfortable with the idea of going to therapists. I think everyone regardless of how they feel should go. They are incredible.

Doesn't change the fact that YOU are assigning Right-Wing to the Bundy's and the Feds as Left-Wing for some reason. This was not at all a political stand-off. I think you're missing the point. The below is more proof you're missing the point: Perfect evidence of the point you're missing. As you can see here, you are attaching "environmentalism" to the political left Democrat even as you admit you are not one. So, an environmentalist getting harassed is not because he is left-wing or Democrat. He is harassed because he's an environmentalist. So assigning "right wing" to the harasser is also going to be a mis-characterization just like assigning Democrat to your environmentalism is a mis-charaterization. This is, of course, false. Robert Byrd was a Democrat from the time he was grand pooh bah of the KKK until the day he died. Of course, the MSM have been working non-stop for almost half a century to convince you otherwise. In any case, this is still missing the point. White Nationalists do not cause violence because of political affiliation. White Nationalists, if they are to become violent due to their white nationalism, will kill you if you are not white - regardless of your political affiliation.

If it is too much of a threadjack, please ignore, but I am reminded of another board game I used to like that gave you some flexibility in choosing your "victory" conditions. It was a game called Careers. I forget many of the details, but you basically started the game by figuring out what combination of "love", "money", "fame", and maybe 1 or two other criteria would constitute your victory condition. Then you played the game, pursuing different career paths that would give you varying points in each category. The goal was to be the first to amass the correct number of points in each category and win the game.

Here... now you've seen them:

If I remember, Life and Monopoly both had the same background game from which they were derived. The original game had the same goal, to win by having the most money, but it was also a morality game...showing how money actually corrupts and focusing on it can be a bad thing. It is interesting how that was changed so that now, when we play the games it's normally more for fun than the morality, and the morality is actually lost and the focus really is to win by having the most money.

I’m currently reading “The Body Keeps the Score”. So far, I’d recommend it.

As a rule, Gizmodo is a terrible source for understanding or interpreting law. Blindfolded justice, Sunday21. It's the only justice. Anything else is injustice. You seem to have gone from arguing what's "fair" to instead arguing what the courts do. What the courts do is often wrong. I'm concerned about what's right. Saying "I can fire YOU because you're merely a white man, but I can't fire YOU because you're a protected black transsexual" is the very opposite of just. If the law protects one, it must protect the other. If it does not, then you have an unjust, corrupt police state, which is apparently what Canada has become.

Sure, there was a lot of chance involved, but many previous options the player had have been removed. They no longer have: bet on the wheel stock (I think they still have it but it's less prominent now) toll bridge (incentivizing the player to take shorter paths to be the first across) millionaire tycoon first millionaire bonus Some elements they had that are chutes and ladder (in the sense that you only get them based on a roll of the dice), but that allow you to employ strategy in execution: share the wealth cards revenge I'm not arguing that there wasn't a lot of chance involved, just that there was more strategy options than now.

https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Life(1977vers).PDF Each child gave you $24K in retirement. I like the older version. The newer one plays like Chutes and Ladders by comparison.

There is a bit of a conundrum. First is that we can understand that G-d inspired our constitution here in the USA - including the second amendment as a "fit" for our time. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not just a church for those member that live under the constitution of the United States of America - it is for all the Saints of these Latter-days. There is not one church for the United States and another church for England, France, South Africa or anywhere else. We are told that if we have faith and believe - that all things will turn out for our good. I do not believe that such means that no one will be killed by a nut job at church by a gun or any other weapon (church history clearly points out that such is not at all the case). Rather that if such were to happen - it would turn out for the good of those that believe and have faith. The Traveler

I think the only bonus from kids is a “life tile” which provides a random amount of money from like $1,000-10,000

So you think your health records should be public?

I like your post raven, and surely there are some who fall in that camp. I'm struggling, not because it challenges my political viewpoints, but because it seems counterintuitive to various realities I've come to understand. Like how a gun free zone only disarms good guys. And how once someone has decided to start killing until something stops him, he'll keep killing until someone stops him. And how when you compare every single demographic, to the conceal-carry members in that demographic, you find the permit holders have lower rates of violent crime. But absolutely, the people using the "p" word are prophets and apostles, serious folks who do their homework and their knee work before just willy-nilly doubling down on a controversial policy. I'd be foolish to dismiss that out of hand.

All the data and research (on either side) doesn’t change the church’s position for the members to not carry weapons at church. It’s simple, they are prohibited. After praying I felt the spirit confirm that this is how God wants it at this time in his houses of worship. For me this is no different than many other church statement or handbook rules. There are many things in the church that I can point to research done by man to support or not support a church doctrine or position. I think many members (not all) are struggling with this because it challenges their political viewpoint on gun rights. Just like I have seen many members struggle with the statements made by the church leadership on abortion, immigration, same sex attraction, etc. I have tried to step back and ask myself the following. Are my political views first and my religious beliefs second or are my religious beliefs first and my political viewpoint subservient to those beliefs. God is not a conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. These are things of man.

What's a weak background check?

My - - - What the French get paid to do at work??? The Traveler

I find this attitude odd. To me allowing public derision or belittling of a specific demographic group is abhorrent. I actually find this attitude to be just amazing like the time an lds American sent me a picture of what appeared to be a machine gun. He was very happy about his new purchase. Other than wanting to own a machine gun he was a pretty lovely fellow. Loved his wife and family. I guess this is why one belongs to message boards like this one. One learns such interesting things! But there we have it. I suspect this is a cultural difference. I suppose that it is not unusual to find the behaviors and attitudes of others to be puzzling. I wonder how Australians feel about this. I have occasionally been shocked in watching UK tv when they make fun of the welsh or the scots. I was also watching an Australian show where they used a nickname to refer to Lebanonise people to describe takeout food. I found this offensive. @askandanswer is it okay socially or legally to denigrate specific groups in Oz? Do you have prohibited grounds? Well muchos interesting! Normally here educated people have a rule of not criticizing those in prohibited grounds situations. I think though that my attitude is not unknown in the US. I had an absolutely hysterical conversation with a English woman in her late 60s-70s. This English lady was spitting blood. As part of a charity organization’s work, she flew to Boston. The American administrator gave her information over the phone because the older English lady was not comfortable with email. The American administrator described the greeter who would meet the English lady at the airport to drive the English lady downtown. The greeter was also a volunteer. The English lady had difficulty finding the greeter and thus things did not go smoothly. Later the English lady discovered that the greeter was black. This information she had not been told. The English woman rounded on me in fury when she reached the Canadian leg of her journey and demanded to know why she had been told the greeters approximate age, profession, gender but not her race which in the English woman’s opinion, this information would have been the most useful. I tried to explain the difficult situation that the American administrator may have been in. The organization was run by retired experts from various fields. I have to deal with retired experts in my job and they can be a real pain and seriously touchy. So I can see why the administrator behaved as she did. I can also completely understand the point of view of the tired elderly English woman worn out by travel and dying for a cup of tea. In fact to me this story, the rage of the irate English woman and the conscientious American woman are so funny that I can barely type. Of course, you may also be pulling my leg in a major way! Where is my foil hat? Its’s a conspiracy. I will ask prison Chaplin as soon as I can think of a tactful way to ask the question. After all I don’t want to offend anyone! 😂

Legislated (forced) sharing of resources isn't charity. It seems more like Lucifer's plan than Jesus'.

Welcome to the forum brother! Firstly, the answer to every question about whether or not you should share something with the bishop is yes! It sounds like you have been working on turning your life around, which is great. Would you truly feel comfortable if you hid something from the Lord's servant in order to obtain a temple recommend? Of course not. Talk to him and be honest about your life so when you get your reccomend your conscience will be free and clear. Secondly, do right by your son. You may not have a lot to do with him at the moment, but he's your son. Whether you had him intentionally or not, it's your responsibility to do what you can for him. Maybe all that is right now is phone calls or some money sent for his support, but you need to do everything you can to help him out. God expects us to care for our children, and if you want to show him that you have truly changed you need to do everything you can to take care of and nurture your son. Best of luck on your journey back to Christ brother.

Dear friends whom with I have now long associated, It is with regret that I have made the difficult decision to abandon this forum. There are a variety of reasons I've made this decision but the primary one is that the More Good Foundation and the progressive, false, mistaken lean of so many of their articles has made me more and more uncomfortable. I am, indeed, deeply uncomfortable with some of them and have considered leaving before accordingly. Deeply, deeply uncomfortable. I have to follow my conscience. I do love the association and the discussion when it is doesn't turn nasty. The times it does turn nasty is the other reason I've made this decision. I've backed way off on my involvement from years past partially because of the nastiness. But part of that, I knew, was my fault, and something I had partial control over. The articles I have no control over. I will check my private messages now and again for a few months. If any of you want to stay in touch otherwise then PM me and we can friend on Facebook or something. But I have simply become too uncomfortable in this particular house to continue dwelling here. And, yes, I am writing this in a snit. I don't expect it will do any good, and many, many more would need to join me in the abandonment before it might do any good -- though I suspect that it might not even then. Apparently the More Good Foundation, without change of leadership, is going to continue down this path. I consider that path highly insidious and destructive. There's been hardly a constructive article written in the past few years. That which isn't harmful tends towards trite and shallow. Because it is difficult for me to leave things hanging and not reply, which would defeat the idea of leaving -- I likely won't read or reply to any comments here in this thread. It is, truly, a difficult thing for me to just walk away. But I feel I need to. And all I can do is that which I feel is right. See you on Facebook if you like. Goodbye, Charles P.S. Those of you who weren't my friends and held no charity or kindness for me -- well...I wish you well too. But regret the parting slightly less, if I'm honest. P.P.S. I'll still be at the get-together at Tucanos and look forward to seeing those of you who are attending.

Well...in Canadian Employment Law, you can only be discriminated against if you belong to a group represented under prohibited grounds. Not sure how this works in the states. I know nothing whatever about US or Canadian consumer law. In the US there are laws that outlaw denying service based on race etc. This is statute law. The question is, how are these laws interpreted? - tort law. There are golf clubs that do not allow female members. From this article it seems that they do so by denying memberships to women. https://www.si.com/golf/2019/07/01/private-golf-clubs-muirfield-augusta-women-discrimination Back to employment law! in Canada, it is almost impossible to become a counsellor for alcoholics unless you have been an alcoholic. This is an issue of Bone Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR). Similarly, Organizations can decide that you need to be Jewish to work in a Jewish community Centre. So could you limit a job to white males using BFOR? I think so. Is there some affliction that tends to afflict white males? Quite likely. In this case, counselors for this affliction could be restricted to white males using BFOR.

"Say what now?" - this guy:

That game would not be controversial at all

According to my daughter the last time we played (was somewhere around 2016), the goal was to cram absolutely as many children into the car as possible, and make husband sit in the back and cry.