MarginOfError

Members
  • Posts

    6228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Posts posted by MarginOfError

  1. 1 minute ago, Vort said:

    Why? Serious question. I don't dialog with my two-year-old granddaughter about whether Grandpa loves her. I instruct her on the matter. That's because I'm the adult. Why would I willingly abdicate that position when talking to my 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-year-old grandchild about sexual orientation or gender identity, arguably far more important topics?

    Let me reframe a bit and state that when I say "kids*," I'm generally referring to teenagers. I might be more direct with younger kids. But certainly as they age, they should have more talking time. Why should they?  Because there's a very real risk that a teenager will choose to hide their feelings from you if you don't. Instead, they may just tell you what they think you want to hear until they get to a place in life where you have less influence over them. And then they go off and do what they want anyway.

    Talking with them is much more likely to build the kind of trust that keeps communication open and maintains your role as a persuasive influence in their life**.

     

    * working in a scouting program with both boys and girls, I've taken to saying "kids." In church settings, "youth" is probably more appropriate.

    ** Not saying that every discussion will always end in perfect agreement. But I don't think they have to.  You just want them to keep to conversational door open.

  2. 1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    Maybe it would be more accurate to say we can't "fully" protect children from it. But even then, that isn't really true to what I meant either. Kids simply seeing a man wearing a dress isn't necessarily damaging in and of itself if the proper responses, teachings and trainings are being done consistently. What I mean when I say we have to protect our children is, in part, that we need to be talking about this with them. Teaching them of the dangers. Teaching them of the corruption. Teaching them of the evil ideologies behind it all. Of course that teaching needs to include Christlike love, humility, patience, longsuffering, kindness, etc.

    It also means being exceedingly careful with kids and social media, serious consideration of home schooling, monitoring of other entertainment (#cancelDisney), etc. In particular it means affirming young girls of the awesomeness of their being female.

    I fully agree that we need to be talking with kids about it.  But the key is talking with them about it.  Not talking at them about it. A major part of that is listening to them. Honestly, I don't get the sense from what you are saying that you are particularly interested in the listening. It feels like you'd rather tell them how it is. Asking a gender queer what they think it means to be male or female will get a lot of different responses. You might be surprised how many of those responses have to do with social norms and stereotypes that they don't want to be bound to. You can talk about dangers and corruptions and ideologies all you want--if they don't believe that you care about and understand them, they won't listen. Instead, they'll very likely bottle up their feelings until they're outside of your influence.

    Quote

    I'm seriously not following why you bolded "The insanity is beyond. Beyond beyond." There's nothing contrary to what the church, scriptures, prophesy, or anything teaches in that comment. The insanity is beyond.

    I bolded it because it is so dismissive. "I don't understand, and I don't agree. Therefore it is insane." Again, you can't make any meaningful impact in this realm without first building a personal connection. 

    Quote

    Your understanding of this is a bit off to me.

    The church recognizes that biological sex is biological. But it also declares, unapologetically, that gender is eternal. The fact that it recognizes that some people 'identify' as a different gender is not contrary to @Carborendum's comments at all.

    "Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth. Some people experience feelings of incongruence between their biological sex and their gender identity." (Handbook 38.6.23)

    By substitution, the Family Proclamation is equivalently read "Biological sex at birth is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

    So, yes, males have a penis and females have a vagina. But that is their biological sex, and not their gender identity. It's worth considering that Identity, as a concept, is an interface for social interaction. It's entirely possible to have a penis and want to wear skirts. So what does any one person's gender identity mean to them? If we dismiss it all at "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina," then you'll never know, because they won't trust you enough to share with you their most personal feelings.  

    Quote

    I do not follow how your response is even related to what @scottyg said.

    Taking a paraphrase, just as "woke-ism" is proposed as a false god by scottyg, I'm willing to propose hard line exclusionary stances as a false god. It's clear when you read the materials I linked to that the Church wants gay and transgender members to be welcomed, embraced, and included. There is space in the middle, and in my observation, it isn't being used very much.

    Quote

    I will validate valid things.

    This is the heart of the problem. Read the whole sentence again. "But validating their thoughts and feelings, and letting them have a leading role in the definition of their identity isn't such a bad thing. In fact, for many of them, it opens a huge level of trust and communication with spiritual leaders that can help them develop their spirituality." 

    But nope, never mind. The Folk Prophet is a better judge of when a person's feelings are valid and when they are not? Just ask him how you should feel and identify--that will make everything all better.  

    Here's a better idea: “One thing that is always important is to recognize the feelings of a person, that they are real. That they are authentic. That we don’t deny that someone feels a certain way. We take the reality where it is, and we go from there. And we want people to feel that they have a home here." (D. Todd Christopherson)

  3. On 4/28/2022 at 9:45 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

    I am so distraught at what's going on with this stuff. It's SO terrible and having a daughter now...it just breaks me heart. 

    Up to a year or so ago it hadn't hit too close to home, and I hadn't even realized how much of an epidemic it is, even in happy valley Utah, even in the Church, even everywhere.  Now I have extended family (a close cousin's daughter) who had decided they're Trans. And I've heard of example after example from friends and family in their wards, schools, etc. 

    We have to protect our children from this! 

    Thanks @Just_A_Guy for the resource on it. We need even more. The insanity is beyond. Beyond beyond. And it's going to get worse. 

    Elon Musks purchase of Twitter is helpful. It also won't be enough.

    If, as is being suggested by the Church in the links I  provided, we are going to accept and welcome transgender and gay members into our congregations, you will not be able to protect children from it.  They will encounter it, and we need to engage this issue, not try to cut it off.

    On 4/29/2022 at 5:05 AM, person0 said:

    This has infiltrated and infected our ward.  2 female youth who have identified as trans (one has fully socially transitioned), 1 who identifies as pansexual, 1 as bisexual, my daughter (for a time) was introduced to it by another young woman.  Our kids are homeschooled and video websites with suggested/automatic content are heavily restricted in our home, so nearly 100% of their exposure to this phenomenon has come through associations at Church.

    Thankfully, intervention helped our daughter and at least one of the other youth to escape and align themselves on the path (for now).  Our daughter was being led down the path that could eventually have led to a trans identity (all seemingly stemming from a desire for social acceptance).  One of her so called 'friends' in the ward even helped come up with a new name for her that we quickly, lovingly and successfully shut down (thankfully).

    "It is always important to acknowledge the reality of another person’s feelings. We shouldn’t deny that someone feels a certain way. We take the reality where it is, and we go from there." (found in both the gay and transgender topics). This isn't a disease. And quite frankly, the Church has plenty of statements out indicating the gay and transgender members can retain membership, hold callings, and pursue their spiritual development beside every other member of our congregations. Being gay or transgender is not, de facto, off the path.

    On 4/30/2022 at 9:54 PM, Carborendum said:

    This is not allowing.  This is encouraging.  If they simply took the time to explain a boy has a p... and a girl has a v... then that would be the end of it.  If the child still "feels" something else, then they're going against both science and religion.  And the family would have to figure that out.  But 99% of the cases of this generation are only because children aren't learning how to discern truth from error.  They're allowed to believe anything anyone tells them not matter how harmful it may be.

    This movement is literally killing our children.  And the band went marching on.

    This confuses biological sex with gender identity. The General Handbook identifies biological sex and gender identity as two distinct concepts. (38.6.23).  It is not killing our children in any meaningful spiritual sense. The kids are perfectly capable of developing spiritual capacity while also expressing and/or exploring these identities. 

    On 4/30/2022 at 10:31 PM, scottyg said:

    Like the children of Israel, many today are chasing after false idols. Political movements and philosophy are more attractive than scripture and Prophets. Some even lie to themselves that a just god would accept their evil actions, and that those actions will somehow bring lasting happiness.

    This cuts both ways, frankly. For instance, there are people in my ward who are upset that a young man who came out as gay earlier this year is still allowed to bless the sacrament and attend the temple. "But he came out! PUBLICLY!  There are consequences!" Alas, that is not what the Church expects, requires, or teaches. 

     

     

    None of this is to say that youth should be allowed to run hog-wild after every new idea. But validating their thoughts and feelings, and letting them have a leading role in the definition of their identity isn't such a bad thing. In fact, for many of them, it opens a huge level of trust and communication with spiritual leaders that can help them develop their spirituality. 

    "People can make their own choices about how to identify. There are active, temple recommend–holding Church members who comply with the law of chastity and identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. There are active Church members who experience same-sex attraction and never choose to identify themselves using a label. Our primary identity will always be as a child of God." (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng) And that identity is the identity we need to see--and act toward--first.

  4. 11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    It was certainly a tragic feat of verbal jiujitsu, taking an amendment that ended the practice of constitutionally dehumanizing one group of powerless people, and using it to constitutionally dehumanize an entirely other group of powerless people.

    The 14th Amendment talks about the privileges and immunities of US citizenship being extended to all citizens, enunciates a right to equal protection, and reiterates that life, liberty and property may only be abridged through due process of law.  It certainly doesn’t enunciate abortion as a privilege or immunity of citizenship; and Dobbs points out that “liberty” is not an absolute and that courts have traditionally pointed to “well ordered liberty”, which necessarily entails some degree of constraint on human behavior.

    Roe purported to be extending a right-to-privacy as elucidated in (if memory serves) the Grizwold line of cases which included things like interracial marriage, contraception, etc.  But as Dobbs pointed out, none of these behaviors butted up against a third-party’s interests in (potential) life itself.

    That's an interesting line of thinking. I'll have to think on that one.  It seems in my head I've made the mistake of considering abortion to be concerned of the parties of the mother and the fetus. I've never considered the fetus to be the third party.

    One the one hand, historically, my understanding is that it was uncommon for people to consider fetuses a "person" at the time Roe was decided. But that doesn't necessarily carry over to the present. Afterall, the Fourteenth amendment was necessary specifically because of the once prevailing notion that those with black skin weren't "persons." Social progressivism, and all.  

    So I guess this opens up the "personhood" argument again.  I've never liked the idea of granting personhood at conception. There's so much instability and weirdness in the early weeks of pregnancy. That isn't to say that I don't consider early pregnancy fetuses of value, but I do still see potential for conflicts between parental interests and the unborn. But once again, I'm in the mindset of the fetus not being the third party.  

    I'm rambling...give me a few days.

  5. 7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    But as the proposed Dobbs opinion points out, there is no constitutional right to unfettered bodily autonomy.  My right to bodily autonomy doesn’t mean I have a right to rape; and the Supreme Court has no need to “balance” my right to bodily autonomy arbitrarily imposing a regimen in which I can “only” rape a woman during the first trimester of her anticipated existence.  Roe basically created a right out of whole cloth, and breezily justified it by resurrecting the Dred Scott explanation that the third-parties who were harmed by exercise of this novel “right” were, constitutionally speaking, not really people at all.

    This is not an interpretation of Roe that I'm familiar with. My understanding was that it was decided on the grounds of the 14th amendment (which, curiously, overturned the Dred Scott ruling)

  6. 1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    As is suggesting that members of a mainstream political movement are responsible for the activities of their moonbat fringe.

    Agreed.  Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make.

    Quote

    The fact is, the pro-choice position is rooted in the notion that humans (particularly, women) have an inalienable right to consequence-free sex which trumps a third-party’s right to life itself.

    That isn't entirely accurate. Roe v. Wade did impose restrictions on that right, afterall.  In fact, I'd say that it made a reasonable effort to balance the conflict between the right of the woman to bodily autonomy and the rights of the fetus. But regardless, even Roe recognized it as an alienable right. And the pro-choice movement at large seems to be content with that placement of alieneability.  (making up new forms of alienable is kind of fun)

  7. I won't sugar coat things: I think a lot of the statements being made here are inconsistent with what the Church is teaching and encouraging with regards to sexual orientation and gender identity. Some key highlights:

    • Sexual orientation and gender identity are different issues: "However, same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria are very different....From a psychological and ministerial perspective, the two are different." (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng)
    • Gay and transgender/gender queer individuals are welcome and wanted in the Church: "I now speak directly to Church members who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. We want you to know we love you. You are welcome. We want you to be part of our congregations. You have great talents and abilities to offer God’s kingdom on earth, and we recognize the many valuable contributions you make." (Whitney L. Clayton, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/individuals?lang=eng)
    • At the same time, I will acknowledge the existence of individuals in the Church who wish to perpetuate teachings inconsistent with Christ's and the Church's teachings. I see this from "liberal" members in their desire to redefine the Law of Chastity, but I'm also seeing it "conservative" members who want to purge gay and transgender members from their congregations. Neither are appropriate. From time to time, we all need to sit down and reevaluate if the things we believe are things that the Lord is teachings us, or if they are things we are trying to the the Lord.

    I don't know that I have the mental or emotional energy to dive really deep into this with y'all (this is a topic that's currently creating tension within my ward, and that's taking up a lot of my emotional space). But I will ask you all to take a step back, breathe, and then get to know more about the families that are going through this. Try to understand what their kids' view points and motivations are.  And most importantly, listen to them. Don't say anything. Just listen. 

    Consider, especially, that the Church's positioning on these issues has shifted dramatically.  Two years ago, entering a same sex marriage was a condition that required excommunication.  Now, it's a condition that "may require a membership council" but does not necessitate revocation of membership. Regarding gender transitions, the Church is open to allowing transgender members to attend classes or use restrooms according to their chosen identity (on a case-by-case basis, See General Handbook 38.6.23).

    Please, don't flee your wards. You might think you're helping or saving your children.  But you're hurting the body of Christ. We can do better.

     

    Edit: It wouldn't hurt any of us to review these resources right now, probably multiple times.  There's a lot to take in.

    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender?lang=eng

    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay?lang=eng

  8. On 5/4/2022 at 11:37 PM, Carborendum said:

    I wouldn't be surprised if leftist groups decide to assassinate some members of SCOTUS....

     

    6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

    Yes, actually.  Exactly like them.

    So if I'm understanding you correctly, I can blame all of those anti-abortion vigilante assassinations on "conservative groups?"

     

    6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I would say 99.5% like them.

    Vigilanteism is wrong—maybe not quite all the time, but pretty darned close to it.  And it’s certainly not justified in cases like this.  But . . . 

    The guys who killed the abortionists, generally acted as a result of the notions that a) abortion is killing, and b) citizens are justified in killing killers.

    A leftist assassin would be acting as a result of the notion that citizens are justified in killing people who pose an inconvenience to their personal sex lives.

    Fixed it. 

    There's no "but" to any of this. Any political vigilante assassin, regardless of political affiliations or motivations, suffers from the delusion that they have the right to judge which lives are worth sparing and which are worth exterminating. I think it's fair to explore the motivations of vigilantes that have committed violence in the interest of understanding how they got to where they were (presumably in order to explore ways to prevent such actions from occurring in the future). Speculating on the motivations of a hypothetical vigilante is a cheap shot against people you disagree with.

  9. 7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

    I wouldn't be surprised if leftist groups decide to assassinate some members of SCOTUS.  I'm not predicting they will.  I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised to hear it happening soon.

    The pro-abortion protesters are showing their true colors on just how rude, arrogant, and crazy they can be.  It doesn't take much to push that one over the edge. They are all ready to kill an unborn baby.  And they shoved, punched, and tripped pro-life protesters when they clashed earlier this week.  If they do that to a "commoner", what do you think they'd do if they happened to come across a Justice? 

    You mean kind of like the assassinations carried out by Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings, Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, or Robert L. Dear?

  10. No, I don't think this is anti-religious. But I would agree that it is rewarding the irresponsible.  I think we would disagree on who are the irresponsible parties.

    I have major concerns with student loan forgiveness, because the origin of the massive loans is tuition and living costs at universities spiraling out of control. And they're spiraling out of control because universities are cutting and reducing programs, expanding administration, and building out higher cost living facilities for students.  All those costs get passed down to the students. These costs are not readily manageable, and thus more loans are taken out. Then when costs keep going up, student loan programs offer more funding, and the schools start competing to get that money.

    In short, higher education institutions are not competing for students, anymore; they are competing to get the students' loan money. And every time they make decisions (increasing tuition, cost of living, etc), the institutions get rewarded with more loan money. Offering loan forgiveness without reforming the loan program would just further reward crappy behavior on the part of the institutions. 

    Now, I don't want to take away from the fact that people have walked themselves into these problems by insisting on going to overpriced "popular" schools, or pursuing full on degrees at large universities that could have been completed just as well at smaller, less expensive schools. Or for insisting that they not work while studying, or any combination of a lot of factors. So I've never been a fan of complete loan forgiveness (in fact, I'm vehemently against full forgiveness). But I'm not opposed to offering some form of relief if there are substantive changes to the loan program itself (and no, I don't really have any thoughts on where to start).

  11. In a different strain, I received a message this week from an unfamiliar number. It was a group message of 20 sequential numbers.  8310, 8311, 8312, etc.

    I am sad to say that my phone proceeded to blow up with requests to be removed from the group. "Who dis?" etc. Report them all as spam and let the tech nerds filter out the problem. They can see the meta data and reporting as spam is fairly unlikely to negatively impact any one using their phone legitimately

  12. Is it possible to send a text from a landline? No.

    Is it possible to use a landline to call a service that will transcribe a message into a text? Yes, but I doubt that is what happened here.

    Is it possible to send a text from a computer or computer-like device and make it look like it's sending from a landline? Yes, and in fact it is trivial to do. 

    The "from" line you see displayed on your phone is read from metadata in the message. It can be edited to look like anything.

    What likely happened is a device owned by someone you know was compromised. A phisher sent a blast out to any number available and chose a number at random to use in the "from" field.

    DO NOT RESPOND TO THAT THREAD.

    What the phisher is looking for is evidence of an active phone number. A list of "proven active" phone numbers is more valuable than a random list of numbers.

    This particular phishing attempt tried to use a familiar photo, which has the potential to ensnare those that dont want to ignore a friend. The pornographic image is intended to provoke outrage, hoping you will reply asking them not to send such content. 

    Ignore and delete the messages, or report them as spam. Contact the relative through a different medium to ask if they are ok and recommend they change passwords immediately.

     

  13. You're not alone.  My default position in life is doubt. I can describe myself as skeptically religious and religiously skeptical. 

    I can also say that I'm about 20 years into my personal faith crisis.  Years 5-10 were probably the hardest. It's gotten easier, but there are still days when I feel like it would be easier to throw in the towel and walk away. 

    It's okay to feel that way.  I would recommend you resist the urge to act quickly. Doubts can take months and years to fully understand and resolve. 

    And now, 20 years in, the number of things that get said at church that I doubt far outnumber the things that I believe. But the things that I do believe are worth sticking around for.

    Anyway, probably not the advice you were looking for. But doubting isn't a sign that you need to be fixed. Quite the contrary--if you care enough to doubt, you care enough to learn. Turn that around and use it to explore and grow.

  14. On 3/13/2022 at 8:32 PM, NeuroTypical said:

    Y'all remember what you were thinking and saying in 2008, when Russia did this the first time, but with Georgia?  I guess more to the point, does anyone remember anything about it, or even that it happened?   The first European war of the 21st century?  First time the post-USSR Russia invaded a sovereign nation?  There was some talk about Nato's lack of response then, too.

    Granted, it was a quicker and smaller conflict, with only ~80,000 invading troops and less than 400 killed/1600 wounded total, and "only" displaced less than 200,000 people.  And it only took about a week before the ceasefire, because the Russians were able to occupy pretty much everything they wanted with not too much blood.  Ukraine numbers are between 2-4x as large, with the refugee crisis being a lot bigger.

    I'm hardly an expert, and I'm sort of wondering why Ukraine has the whole world's attention, while Georgia got basically zilch.  I'm thinking it's at least partially due to Ukraine deciding to fight, while Georgia sort of rolled over.  Not sure how much US politics and media wishes have to do with it, but I do find it interesting that 2008 had us all excited about hope and change, and 2022 is full of inflation and a scary democrat midterm election forecast.  

    I'll take a stab at this one and I'll be blunt about it.  The two most contributing factors are 1) Georgians have more in common (culturally/ethnically) with Middle Eastern peoples than they do with European peoples, and 2) Georgia is on the wrong side of the Black Sea.  (Chechnya even more so on both counts). It isn't a comfortable truth, but I don't really doubt these are the primary contributors.

    The other thing working very well for Ukraine has been the fact that their government has entertainers placed throughout a lot of key parts of the government (I can't locate the article I had read about this, but it was a longer piece in one of the more prestigious news organizations (not cable news)) . Zelensky actually took some heat for this given his anti-corruption platform, but he put a handful of his entertainment industry friends throughout the government. They weren't necessarily running major parts of government, but they were pretty well connected to the goings on.  As a consequence, the government got a lot better at telling a story. This isn't your traditional government, and it's been plagued by a lot of inefficienies and failures, but it comes across as genuine and scrappy, and that wins hearts.

    The last major contributor, and this probably has more weight than I'm giving it, is that most geopolitical strategy experts didn't really expect a full on invasion of Ukraine.  There was expectation that Luhansk and Donbass would get swallowed up, but strategically, it doesn't make sense to try to take all of Ukraine. The fact that Putin did so anyway indicates a less rational threat than was expected--a mad man with nukes. I've talked about this before, so I won't rehash, but this dimension is a pretty scary thing to be looking at.

  15. 1 hour ago, Vort said:

     I'm not sure if it is a worthy goal. I don't trust worldwide treaties that everybody assumes everybody else is going to adhere to. There are ways of doing even nuclear-level research and development workout detection, as long as they're not actually walking through your facility. If you're Pakistan (or Taiwan without US support), what are the drawbacks?

     When I was a child, we were taught about something the teachers called kill-power. It was supposed to convince us that the nuclear arms race was ridiculous and that we already had too many weapons and making more weapons wouldn't make us safer.

    As a child, I bought into it. As an adult, I see the flaws and fallacies in that sort of thinking. As if you're carrying your entire arsenal with you at any place you happen in the world and if you decide you have to bomb someplace you're going to have all your stuff right there with you . That just is not how it works.

    I get where you're coming from. I'm not actually as naive as I come across. Being actively involved in the destruction of chemical weapons, I can assure you that our compliance with the chemical weapons treaty doesn't mean we don't have chemical weapons; it only means we don't have stockpiles. (Off the top of my head, I don't recall what the formal definition of stockpile is).

    But we will definitely have some weapons, and we will definitely have chemical agents. The treaties allow retention and development in the interests of staying ahead/abreast of developments elsewhere.

    As for compliance, I would anticipate a nuclear disarmament treaty to follow the same model as the Chemical Weapons treaty. We are regularly inspected by OPCW, with inspectors coming from all sorts of places (some of them hostile and very motivated to find us out of compliance). It's been a good system.

    50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I read somewhere recently that only about 1/3 of the nuclear warheads in the world are (for lack of a better word) operational at this point.  (So, something like 4,000; not 12,000.)

    All the more reason to get rid of them. :)

    Ultimately, my objection to nuclear weapons is the same as my objection the chemical weapons. They are not intended to destroy military targets; they are intended to kill civilians. In that regard, 4,000 is about 4,000 too many.

    for a lot of reasons, I understand that full disarmament is unlikely in my lifetime. But reducing stockpiles to something that doesn't guarantee the extinction of the species would be a good start.

  16. 3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    A completely nuke-free world would undoubtedly be a better place, but I think recent events make that dream even more unlikely.  In the current conflict Putin has been immeasurably empowered by his possession of nukes, and Ukraine has been immeasurably hamstrung by the fact that they gave theirs away.  The takeaway here is likeIy to be that unilateral nuclear disarmament is merely a precursor to your own people becoming the victims of theft, rape, and murder by their greedy neighbors while the international community sits on its hands in terror.

    I agree with unilateral disarmament being a death trap. We've done a good job of banning and eliminating chemical weapons (if memory serves, only three countries refused to sign the chemical weapons treaty; North Korea, Iraq, and Syria).  We would need to go through a similar, world wide treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  It's a pipe dream right now, but a worthy goal.

    In the meantime, I'd be content if the U.S./NATO, Russia, China, and India maybe reduced their stockpiles to just the number of weapons we need to destroy the world once, rather than knock it out of orbit.

    Quote

    I agree re the treatment of Russian nationals.

    As for the Russian Orthodox Church:  it’ll be interesting to see what kind of influence they maintain in the next decade.  Obviously I can’t speak with any authority here; but if (as I understand to be the case) they have been in Putin’s pocket and are unqualified cheerleaders for the war, and if the war goes badly . . . Russians have also, in the past, shown themselves adept at directing fearsome temper tantrums towards the Orthodox Church.

    I would find that very interesting indeed.

  17. 16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    Most of y’all have probably seen this already; it sounds like LDS Charities saw the writing on the wall and pre-positioned humanitarian assets around the borders even before the invasion.

    A random thought I had today was that given the effects of the sanctions on Russia (Task and Purpose described the resultant stagflation there this way:  imagine waking up tomorrow and finding that 30% of your bank balance is just gone):  when the dust settles from this, Russian authorities may be eager for any foreign investment they can get—even if it comes in the form of construction projects by a wealthy American church.

    I would consider this unlikely. No matter what Russian governmental authorities feel about it, the Russian Orthodox church will still fight tooth and nail against it.

    I will say this, though: when this is all done and over, please seek out business from (reputable) Russian sources. Russian people aren't all that different from Ukrainians.  All of the good and glorious things we are seeing from Ukrainians that we keep praising, the Russians share all of those traits. They are going to suffer enormously from this. They are collateral casualties in an economic war to end a military conflict. I hope we are as generous to the Russian populace after this as we are to the Ukrainian populace.

  18. 10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I wonder if some countries that might otherwise be inclined to do more (Poland, for example) are actually being hamstrung by their NATO membership; since the western countries would be dragged into a war if Russia chose to retaliate.  Is the USA leaning on eastern NATO countries to do less than they want to do?

    I can't speak with any authority, but I would guess the countries bordering Ukraine are actually more resistant to direct confrontation than you might think. 

    All indications I'm getting from this are that none of this makes any sense.  Russia can't reasonably expect to maintain the territories they've captured so far; the occupying force they would need to take and hold these parts of Ukraine is estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of 500,000 troops.  This is not the work of a rational actor. Which means you have a mad man with a personal vendetta and no clear successor sitting on top of a nuclear arsenal. Given the increase in soviet era tactics (amp up the annihilation and try to break the people), I have genuine fears that we're going to see a tactical nuke go off in Kyiv if Putin can't take it. 

    The big fear on NATOs end is that a direct intervention accelerates Putin's anger. Poland doesn't want tactical nukes going off in Lviv, Rivne, Lutsk, or Ivano-Frankivsk.

    The sickening and heart breaking thing about this is that the best possible outcome is for the Russians to topple Putin on their own*. The massive and rapid increase in sanctions works toward that goal. Regrettably, we have to infuriate them and turn them against their government. Unfortunately, there are no sanctions we can impose that will do this quickly.  The wealthy and middle class in Russia are certainly feeling the affect of sanctions pretty quickly, but the lower class  (which is quite large) won't feel the pinch for weeks. 

    What we are witnessing right now is the nightmare scenario of autocracy in the nuclear age.  And, to make a political statement, it speaks to the dire need to eliminate nuclear weapons for the world wide arsenals. 

     

    * And lets be honest--when it comes to toppling brutal dictators, the Russians are the pros.

  19. On 2/28/2022 at 6:21 PM, askandanswer said:

    For those who rest from their usual labours on Saturday, and take the time to play sport or go hunting, or stay at home, do a rado trip or whatever, are they violating the 4th commandment? Most of us have become accustomed to working 5 days a week whereas this commandment clearly commands us to work for six days. Probably there are many of us that do work 6 days a week, but for those who only work 5, are we violating this commandment, or is there a teaching from the church somewhere that gives us an exemption?

    Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;

    Capitalism called. They would like to hire you as a lobbyist.