MarginOfError

Members
  • Posts

    6228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Irreversible Damage   
    Careful now...don't threaten us with a good time!
  2. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Carborendum in Feedback requested to Alma 11:37   
    On the more critical side, I think it's fair to recognize that Amulek was not a particularly strong orator. And unfortunately, we don't get much else from him in the Book of Mormon to know if he got much better with time. 
    In his defense, however, he was kind of new to this preaching thing. He was also being put on the spot by a very hostile and, we are told, skilled debate opponent. He may have been a little flustered. 
    So let's deconstruct the message a bit by first backing up to verses 26 - 34. Zeezrom is questioning Amulek on the nature and existence of God, and it is Zeezrom who introduces the terminology "saved in sin." We aren't really sure what Zeezrom means by this, but Amulek kind of rolls with it. In response, Zeezrom says that Amulek is assuming the ability to command God by saying that He will not save people in their sins.  Verse 37 is an attempt by Amulek to clarify what he means. In my opinion, his clarification is rather muddled:
    No unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven You are unclean if you have sinned You must inherit the kingdom of heaven to be saved What's lacking in the immediate response is that repentance is the bridge from being unclean to becoming clean and inheriting the kingdom of heaven.  Amulek kinda-sorta gets around to that in verse 40, but it isn't very direct. So we kind of have to fill in the gaps. And then to top it off, he takes a tangent down physical resurrection in verses 41 - 45 that doesn't add much to his point about sinning, resurrection, and cleanliness.  These verses do give us an important hint, however, because they sound very similar to what Alma taught Corianton in Alma chapters 40-42.  In those chapters, Alma talks about sin, the Atonement, repentance, death, resurrection, and how all those concepts coexist right up until the resurrection, at which point we stand before God to be judged. 
    If we take into account that Alma met Amulek in chapter 8 and recruited him to help teach, I would guess that the duration of time between chapter 8 and chapter 11 is somewhere in the vicinity of several days to a few weeks.  I like to think that Amulek's head is swimming in new information, and the teachings around the physical resurrection are new and exciting to him. In the way I envision these events, he's so excited about this new piece of knowledge and flustered enough by the intense confrontation he's in, that he simply forgets to add a certain part of the puzzle. The message he's trying to convey in verse 37 would come across more clearly if he had though to include some of the teachings in Alma chapter 5 (perhaps verses 26-27?).
    So, in short, I don't think Alma 11:37 can be properly understood in isolation. It's an incomplete thought. Fortunately, there's enough information in Alma's teachings to help us complete the message Amulek was trying to convey.
  3. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from MrShorty in Irreversible Damage   
    There are a few things I'd say to this, and I don't think any one of them stand alone, so bear with me.
    First, virology is not sociology, and we treating virological threats and sociological threats identically seems silly. That isn't to say that our response to the recent virological threat didn't create sociological problems: it most certainly did. But I would think we could learn from those sociological problems that the sociological solution we needed was to come back together. (Where that balance between managing virological and sociological threats sits is, in my view, an insanely difficult question, but not very relevant to the current topic). Similarly in the matter of LGBTQ identities, this is a sociological phenomenon. Running away from it, or isolating ourselves from it, may very well do more damage the good in the long run.
    Consider also that fleeing to a more like-minded ward/stake comes with the potential for disappointment. So you go find a ward that happens to have no LGBT youth, and a bishop who has a similar mindset at you on these issues.  And then 10 months later the bishop is released, six months later, one of the youth comes out with their social transition, and the new bishop makes every effort to welcome, accept, and include that youth as much as church policy permits.  What do you do now?  Do you pull up stakes and flee again?  As the current policies and teachings around LGBT membership filter into the leadership, I would guess it will become increasingly difficult to find a ward that is free of these influences.
    Lastly, as I said earlier, fleeing a ward over disagreements weakens the body of Christ. Yes, we have conflict over this issue. In some/many cases, that is bordering on contention (with a lot of guilty parties from every angle). But conflict and contention are not the same thing. Unresolved conflict breeds contention, but well managed and deliberate conflict has enormous potential to build unity and intimacy (spiritually and emotionally). 
    So, please, don't flee. 
     
    Now, for my part, I'm going to have to disengage a lot for this topic here. If you want to learn more about my perspective and viewpoint, message me privately. But this is an issue that has deep feels for me, and, quite frankly, there are too many people here that I don't trust with me deepest emotions to air things out in a public forum.
  4. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from MrShorty in Irreversible Damage   
    The extra background does help.  A lot.  And is utterly baffling. 
    If we posit my perspective, which is admittedly more permissive than most here, this does the same psychological and emotional damage* that refusing a child their chosen identity does. It's just doing the damage from the different direction.  Each person's path to self discovery and self confidence should be their own to control (with the mentorship and unwavering support of unconditionally loving parents). If you've put yourself in the driver's seat of someone else's self-exploration, you're doing it wrong.
     
     
    * feelings of rejection, depression, etc.
  5. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Irreversible Damage   
    There are a few things I'd say to this, and I don't think any one of them stand alone, so bear with me.
    First, virology is not sociology, and we treating virological threats and sociological threats identically seems silly. That isn't to say that our response to the recent virological threat didn't create sociological problems: it most certainly did. But I would think we could learn from those sociological problems that the sociological solution we needed was to come back together. (Where that balance between managing virological and sociological threats sits is, in my view, an insanely difficult question, but not very relevant to the current topic). Similarly in the matter of LGBTQ identities, this is a sociological phenomenon. Running away from it, or isolating ourselves from it, may very well do more damage the good in the long run.
    Consider also that fleeing to a more like-minded ward/stake comes with the potential for disappointment. So you go find a ward that happens to have no LGBT youth, and a bishop who has a similar mindset at you on these issues.  And then 10 months later the bishop is released, six months later, one of the youth comes out with their social transition, and the new bishop makes every effort to welcome, accept, and include that youth as much as church policy permits.  What do you do now?  Do you pull up stakes and flee again?  As the current policies and teachings around LGBT membership filter into the leadership, I would guess it will become increasingly difficult to find a ward that is free of these influences.
    Lastly, as I said earlier, fleeing a ward over disagreements weakens the body of Christ. Yes, we have conflict over this issue. In some/many cases, that is bordering on contention (with a lot of guilty parties from every angle). But conflict and contention are not the same thing. Unresolved conflict breeds contention, but well managed and deliberate conflict has enormous potential to build unity and intimacy (spiritually and emotionally). 
    So, please, don't flee. 
     
    Now, for my part, I'm going to have to disengage a lot for this topic here. If you want to learn more about my perspective and viewpoint, message me privately. But this is an issue that has deep feels for me, and, quite frankly, there are too many people here that I don't trust with me deepest emotions to air things out in a public forum.
  6. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from MrShorty in Feedback requested to Alma 11:37   
    On the more critical side, I think it's fair to recognize that Amulek was not a particularly strong orator. And unfortunately, we don't get much else from him in the Book of Mormon to know if he got much better with time. 
    In his defense, however, he was kind of new to this preaching thing. He was also being put on the spot by a very hostile and, we are told, skilled debate opponent. He may have been a little flustered. 
    So let's deconstruct the message a bit by first backing up to verses 26 - 34. Zeezrom is questioning Amulek on the nature and existence of God, and it is Zeezrom who introduces the terminology "saved in sin." We aren't really sure what Zeezrom means by this, but Amulek kind of rolls with it. In response, Zeezrom says that Amulek is assuming the ability to command God by saying that He will not save people in their sins.  Verse 37 is an attempt by Amulek to clarify what he means. In my opinion, his clarification is rather muddled:
    No unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven You are unclean if you have sinned You must inherit the kingdom of heaven to be saved What's lacking in the immediate response is that repentance is the bridge from being unclean to becoming clean and inheriting the kingdom of heaven.  Amulek kinda-sorta gets around to that in verse 40, but it isn't very direct. So we kind of have to fill in the gaps. And then to top it off, he takes a tangent down physical resurrection in verses 41 - 45 that doesn't add much to his point about sinning, resurrection, and cleanliness.  These verses do give us an important hint, however, because they sound very similar to what Alma taught Corianton in Alma chapters 40-42.  In those chapters, Alma talks about sin, the Atonement, repentance, death, resurrection, and how all those concepts coexist right up until the resurrection, at which point we stand before God to be judged. 
    If we take into account that Alma met Amulek in chapter 8 and recruited him to help teach, I would guess that the duration of time between chapter 8 and chapter 11 is somewhere in the vicinity of several days to a few weeks.  I like to think that Amulek's head is swimming in new information, and the teachings around the physical resurrection are new and exciting to him. In the way I envision these events, he's so excited about this new piece of knowledge and flustered enough by the intense confrontation he's in, that he simply forgets to add a certain part of the puzzle. The message he's trying to convey in verse 37 would come across more clearly if he had though to include some of the teachings in Alma chapter 5 (perhaps verses 26-27?).
    So, in short, I don't think Alma 11:37 can be properly understood in isolation. It's an incomplete thought. Fortunately, there's enough information in Alma's teachings to help us complete the message Amulek was trying to convey.
  7. Thanks
    MarginOfError got a reaction from askandanswer in Feedback requested to Alma 11:37   
    On the more critical side, I think it's fair to recognize that Amulek was not a particularly strong orator. And unfortunately, we don't get much else from him in the Book of Mormon to know if he got much better with time. 
    In his defense, however, he was kind of new to this preaching thing. He was also being put on the spot by a very hostile and, we are told, skilled debate opponent. He may have been a little flustered. 
    So let's deconstruct the message a bit by first backing up to verses 26 - 34. Zeezrom is questioning Amulek on the nature and existence of God, and it is Zeezrom who introduces the terminology "saved in sin." We aren't really sure what Zeezrom means by this, but Amulek kind of rolls with it. In response, Zeezrom says that Amulek is assuming the ability to command God by saying that He will not save people in their sins.  Verse 37 is an attempt by Amulek to clarify what he means. In my opinion, his clarification is rather muddled:
    No unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven You are unclean if you have sinned You must inherit the kingdom of heaven to be saved What's lacking in the immediate response is that repentance is the bridge from being unclean to becoming clean and inheriting the kingdom of heaven.  Amulek kinda-sorta gets around to that in verse 40, but it isn't very direct. So we kind of have to fill in the gaps. And then to top it off, he takes a tangent down physical resurrection in verses 41 - 45 that doesn't add much to his point about sinning, resurrection, and cleanliness.  These verses do give us an important hint, however, because they sound very similar to what Alma taught Corianton in Alma chapters 40-42.  In those chapters, Alma talks about sin, the Atonement, repentance, death, resurrection, and how all those concepts coexist right up until the resurrection, at which point we stand before God to be judged. 
    If we take into account that Alma met Amulek in chapter 8 and recruited him to help teach, I would guess that the duration of time between chapter 8 and chapter 11 is somewhere in the vicinity of several days to a few weeks.  I like to think that Amulek's head is swimming in new information, and the teachings around the physical resurrection are new and exciting to him. In the way I envision these events, he's so excited about this new piece of knowledge and flustered enough by the intense confrontation he's in, that he simply forgets to add a certain part of the puzzle. The message he's trying to convey in verse 37 would come across more clearly if he had though to include some of the teachings in Alma chapter 5 (perhaps verses 26-27?).
    So, in short, I don't think Alma 11:37 can be properly understood in isolation. It's an incomplete thought. Fortunately, there's enough information in Alma's teachings to help us complete the message Amulek was trying to convey.
  8. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from MrShorty in It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.   
    So if I'm understanding you correctly, I can blame all of those anti-abortion vigilante assassinations on "conservative groups?"
     
    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. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Vort in Irreversible Damage   
    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.
  10. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from JohnsonJones in It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.   
    Agreed.  Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make.
    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)
  11. Okay
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Irreversible Damage   
    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
  12. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from MrShorty in Irreversible Damage   
    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.
    "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.
    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. 
    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.
  13. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from NeuroTypical in It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.   
    see also: 
     
     
  14. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.   
    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.
  15. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from MrShorty in Irreversible Damage   
    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
  16. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.   
    Agreed.  Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make.
    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)
  17. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.   
    So if I'm understanding you correctly, I can blame all of those anti-abortion vigilante assassinations on "conservative groups?"
     
    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.
  18. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Russia-Ukraine conflict   
    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.
  19. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from LDSGator in It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.   
    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?
  20. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from MrShorty in Student Loan Forgiveness Antireligious?   
    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).
  21. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Student Loan Forgiveness Antireligious?   
    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).
  22. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Student Loan Forgiveness Antireligious?   
    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).
  23. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Received a Strange Text   
    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.
     
  24. Like
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Received a Strange Text   
    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.
     
  25. Love
    MarginOfError got a reaction from Traveler in Received a Strange Text   
    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.