unixknight

Members
  • Posts

    3152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Everything posted by unixknight

  1. I've seen that same sort of thing in other areas as well. Evidence that is known to have been fabricated, but is still used to spread the dogma. I actually had a friendly debate on one such subject with a friend, who actually uses these materials in teaching his high school class. When I asked him why he would use data that's known to have been fabricated, his very candid answer was "it's the best we've got." Think about THAT. The conclusion is already assumed to be true, and so they work backward and incorporate anything that corroborates it, even if it's shown to be unreliable.
  2. Betcha after this summer a LOT of people will be doing their own reloads in California.
  3. A few years ago I was arguing with an environmental cultist. He kept hitting me with the now infamous hockey stick graph that claimed to show a sharp increase in mean global temperatures over the last century or so. At the time, the source code for one of the atmospheric models used by a scientific agency in the U.K. had been leaked. This happened to be the very same model where this hockey stick graph was often sourced from. Being a software engineer, and interested in knowing what the unfiltered truth about this data was, I looked at the code. What I found (and this got a lot of attention because I wasn't the only one) was: (Layman's Terms) that the section of the code where it reads the data from whatever sources were fed into it ignored that data and replaced it with data that would produce the hockey stick. (Developer terms) The function that took in the data stream as parameters had that variable commented out and instead replaced it with an array of decimal values that matched the ones used to create the graph. It then returned this result. So in short, this hunk of atmospheric modeling software, which undoubtedly cost millions to build and maintain, and probably took years to develop, had at least one whole section of it completely rendered moot in order to force it to produce an output that supported the doctrine of the cult of environmentalism. When I presented these findings in my debate with the cultist, he became enraged, accused me of lying, feigned outrage that I'd question the integrity of these scientists who are, apparently, the very paragons of human honesty and virtue, and the argument ended on that note. "Hey unixknight, why are you such a skeptic?" Well, because if people on your side of the issue have to lie to make an argument, then your argument must be wrong. Otherwise the truth would be on your side. As for me doing my part to be a good steward of this world, I believe in keeping in mind how I live and what I do impacts the environment around me, and it influences my choices. I recycle what I can recycle. I don't use electricity I don't have to. My car has an Ecoboost system in it which means the turbocharger allows me to run a much smaller engine for the class car I drive than I would normally need. (It's a midsize sedan with a 1.5L engine, and it has plenty of power.) My truck ain't the most eco friendly vehicle ever built but I only use it to run stuff to the landfill or bring stuff home from Home Depot. I don't kill spiders, I don't dump out chemicals into my land or down the drain, and I don't waste energy. It's what I can do.
  4. Well on the upside, the switch from the "I'm just wondering what you guys think" phase to the "You're just wrong and not nearly as moral as me" phase happened quicker than usual this time. At least he's getting more efficient.
  5. Fair enough. I do agree that it's about the parents as well, in the sense that the parents are a critical part of the kids' life. All I'm saying is that it isn't right to cause drama over it if one can't be there... Because the kids hurt too when loved ones can't attend, and that just makes it worse, and taints the memory of the most important day of their life.
  6. Thanks! If I could only show up wearing my armor...
  7. She felt the same way. I don't think you're being fair when you say "I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's [sic]right of passage." As I said right there in the post you quoted from: " Was I sad? yes. Did I feel left out? Yes." Doesn't make it about me. Did I not spend enough time writing about my feelings to convince you?
  8. Yes, because there's no other way to fix this. There is absolutely no benefit to delaying. Dunno. Depends on the way they approach it. (Hint: Be sincere and repentant.) See above for what it looks like, but Spoiler alert: The ending is they feel a whole lot better and can put all that behind them forever.
  9. THIS. THIS on a taco. Last year, my oldest son got married/sealed at the Temple. I wasn't able to attend because at the time I didn't have a recommend. Was I sad? yes. Did I feel left out? Yes. Was it about me? NO. It was therefore not relevant how I felt. It was his and his wife's day. Not mine, not anybody else's.
  10. It's a good question. The way I've answered it in my head, is that every culture has some mechanism for formalizing and recognizing the joining of a man and a woman to start a family. We're used to a big, formal ceremony but yeah some cultures have little to no ceremony at all. Two people just decide they're joined and that's it. As long as the idea is for it to be a permanent commitment, it counts. It isn't the ceremony itself that satisfies the marriage requirement, it's the commitment, by whatever means are understood and accepted by the cultural context. (So in a culture like ours where some form of ceremony is needed, it isn't enough to just live together and call it marriage... though I understand in some jurisdictions if two people live together long enough, it becomes recognized as a common law marriage. Dunno what the Church's view is on that tho.) Side note: When I was a kid (raised Catholic) I often wondered about a hypothetical scenario just like the one you described, because it occurred to me that if there was no priest around to perform the ceremony, what are you supposed to do? What if there was a worldwide cataclysm and just one man and just one woman had survived? (There was a Twilight Zone episode of that exact scenario, IIRC staring Elizabeth Montgomery and Charles Bronson.) What then? Would God have to perform the ceremony?
  11. Except that you didn't challenge them, brother. It looks like they were ignored. It was stated that we are to be good stewards of the Earth, and you then said the response was "not at all." "Be good stewards" =/= "do nothing at all" regardless of what it actually means. And that's why @estradling75 is frustrated. (If I may presume to speak for him.)
  12. My wife @Dollfacekilla and I have been married for 12 years. And this coming Saturday... ...at the Philadelphia Temple... ...we're getting Sealed. ..finally. Just, ya know, thought some of you might like to know
  13. So I think I just realized something. When I first heard t his, I was looking at it from the opposite perspective... One of "If the couple gets married civilly, why is it necessary to wait a year to get sealed?" But having now read up on it, I realize that it's more about separating those two steps precisely because before, an unmarried couple either had to do both at once, which left out friends and family who didn't hold recommends, or put the sealing aside for a year in order to accommodate them. So this solves that problem by allowing the two phases to be handled separately, but without a year-long delay. Heck, you might even be able to do both on the same day at separate venues. Maybe.
  14. I haven't spent much time with that one, no, since it has never really been relevant to my own situation. Just to clarify, when I say the old policy never made sense to me, that isn't intended to imply that the policy itself was flawed, only that I didn't understand it.
  15. Makes sense to me. After all, if you start of as not married at all you could always have gotten married and sealed all at once. I never understood the need to wait a year.
  16. I might, unless I felt like adversity would teach the lesson better. Here's what I mean. I've got a bunch of kids. I teach them stuff. Sometimes, life is the better teacher. I let my kids learn from their failures as well as from adversity that comes about through no fault of their own. "Dad, my toy broke even though I was being careful!" Ok, that's a teachable moment. I now have an opportunity to teach them how to repair the toy using tools and skills they didn't have before. Sometimes I don't even get involved. Last week my oldest daughter's car broke down and my middle son went out of his way to go over and fix it for her. (He's a professional auto tech.) It was adversity. It was an unforeseen problem that my daughter couldn't have avoided... But look at the result. Her relationship with her brother was strengthened. (They'd been a bit distant lately from each other.) Her car now functions better than it did. My son will gain blessings from Heaven for his selfless act of service. Think about every natural disaster you've heard of. Think of the stories that go along with them. Stories of people giving of themselves to go help. Stories of heroism. That's spirituality! Yes, there's huge loss, enormous tragedy... But that's when we need each other the most, and that's when human beings are at their very best. Ask yourself this: Would we, as a civilization, be better off without that? One day this body I'm in will die. I have no idea when or how. I may die in 40 years in my sleep. I may be killed in a violent car accident in 5 hours. Somebody might murder me in 5 years. I may be killed by a tornado in 10 months. What difference does it make? Death is death. Whether my card gets punched in an hour or in a decade isn't going to matter nearly as much as the state of my spirit and my relationship with Heavenly Father when the moment comes. If I die in an avalanche knowing that I've done my best to live as the Savior would have me live, then I wouldn't regard that as the worst thing that ever happened to me at all. If my spiritual state is strong, why should I fear death? This is why it's important not to procrastinate. If Heavenly Father at some point decides to go all Old Testament and destroy a city I happen to be in - well, my life belongs to Him anyway. Reminds me of a great quote from a tabletop sci fi wargame, of all places: "My sword belongs to the creator. My pain belongs to the creator.My heart belongs to the creator. Claim them he may; they will ever serve him." -Grand Exemplar Kreoss. I've asked myself that question a LOT. How can we know that? Shall we just assume that every Catholic, every Muslim, every Buddhist who claims to have had a spiritual experience is somehow just delusional/mistaken/lying? The solution is this: You're asking the wrong question. We cannot know what goes on in the mind and heart of any person besides our own self. We do know what goes on in our own mind and heart. In the late spring of 1998 I was directly instructed by my Creator to join the Church. I know this to be true with greater certainty than any other piece of knowledge I have. I don't know what God says to anybody else or Why. Hypothetically, if a Muslim friend tells me he's had a direct experience with God and it has strengthened his faith in Islam, that's fine. It doesn't change what He said to me. I can speculate about why that might happen. Maybe God knows my friend's heart and knows that for whatever reason, he would be in better spiritual health through Islam, at least for now. Maybe my friend is mistaken. I dunno. Don't really care either. My responsibility is to obey my Heavenly Father, not to get into other peoples' spiritual business. For that matter, my telling you about my personal experience doesn't mean much to you (or anybody else) either. Why should it? I certainly don't expect it to. If you pray to Heavenly Father for answers then whatever answer you get will be for you alone. I can guarantee you He will not answer your prayer by saying "Listen to unixknight. Do what I told him to do."
  17. unixknight

    .

    Know what the red flag is, to show that it's based on ideology and not science or even morality? It's when they specifically block parental consent being a factor. Where else have we seen this? Hmm... let me think.... ...ah yes. Abortion.
  18. unixknight

    .

    Isn't it odd how medical science has been completely cast aside in favor of this kind of political pressure? You can't get a new procedure to remove warts without an approval process but hey, life altering hormonal treatments that leave the patient irreversibly barren/sterile and show no statistical improvement on the suicide rate of self-described transgender patients? Sure thing, it if pushes an ideology!
  19. I don't think anybody here is condemning the people. Being critical perhaps, but I wouldn't say shaming. In any case, reporting this is an act of compassion.. as well as protecting the membership. I don't mean health-wise. I mean legally. Suppose the people who live in that house continue to deteriorate in health to the point where hospitalization occurs as a result. Suppose now that it's only at this point that the local government gets involved. Now imagine it comes to light that several members of a local church knew how serious the situation was and failed to report it... The church may well be legally liable here. (Perhaps @Just_A_Guy can speak to this point.) but consider also the media. "Mormon Church fails to report extreme health hazard - 3 hospitalized. Do churches have the right to exclude the authorities? Stay with us after the break to learn more!"
  20. That, right there, is all the reason to get out and let professionals take over from there. Even if the rest of the house were reasonably clean that alone would be reason enough to peace out.
  21. Generally speaking I agree. Guys tend to be more likely to let you know what you did wrong, if for no other reason than it justifies a counterattack. (Not necessarily a physical attack. Retaliation takes many forms.) That said, people of both sexes who are highly confrontation averse might ghost you, or an introvert might ghost you for a while even if he's a guy but in general he'll eventually make sure you know what he's mad at you about. As I look back over friends I've lost, the guys do tend to be the ones that ended in a blowout, the women just disappeared. But that's just my own experience. For me, the biggest thing I had to overcome was to be objective, not only in being able to see where I had done wrong, but also where I hadn't. Misunderstandings happen, but sometimes people might get mad at you for no reasonable cause. Being able to tell the difference is crucial, because you can't maintain a genuine friendship by being a doormat.
  22. I've had stuff like that happen to me too. I had a similar epiphany but I got there via a different route. It occurred to me to wonder why *I* was the one bending over backward to fix things. Why *I* was the only one making an effort to communicate and find out what happened. How come the other person wasn't trying to communicate too? Why weren't they as invested as I was in clearing the air or, at least, clarifying what the problem was, whether it could be remedied or not? The answer was: Because I was the one who was invested in fixing it, not them. You can't make the other person care if they don't... and if they were your friend until recently, then it's been brewing a while and the fact that this is the first time you're hearing of it means they don't want to fix it and never did. That doesn't reflect on you. A good person who was a good friend would have spoken up long ago if these were legitimate issues. The fact that they didn't bring it up sooner suggests the problems aren't genuine. Yeah, it sucks and it's painful and you feel helpless because if they don't care then they don't care. You can't force the issue. All you can do is acknowledge that they're the ones with a problem. Maybe they've got a legitimate gripe or two, but if they aren't willing to talk to you about it then all you can do is disregard and move on.