FunkyTown

That is something entirely different. At university, you can have a Korean Christian fellowship. You can have a Black Panthers meeting. You can have groups of all types that objectively would seem to include only one race. When, as an institution, you pass rules that forbid other races from being in a place, you have institutionalized racism. You can have a KKK meeting all you want, but if the Governor says "Okay! No blacks allowed at this KKK meeting." then it becomes not okay. The Powers-That-Be(In whatever form they are - School Headmasters or Presidents) pass institutionalized race-based laws on public lands, you get institutionalized segregation. That's bad.

I accept that you think that having black only spaces is not racial segregation. I mean... It is. By definition: is the separation, either by law or by action, of people of different races in all manner of daily activities, such as education, housing, and the use of public facilities. (From the new world encyclopedia) But I accept that for the record, you don't think that it is racial segregation. Or that racial segregation is good, I guess? Regardless, your disagreement on one of those two things is duly noted.

Over the past month, we've seen a few interesting tidbits and I thought I'd get your opinion on them: Baltimore had the highest murder rate per capita in its history last year: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/28/baltimore-murders-reach-340-december-ends/ The Black Lives Matter movement proposed racial segregation for the first time since the civil rights era: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/why-need-black-only-spaces/ (This is one example. They demanded it at Princeton a few weeks ago). Their demand for black-only spaces can be dressed up all they like, but it's enforced segregation. Yes. That's right. They demanded Segregation. For equality. SEGREGATION. FOR EQUALITY. And Vladimir Putin has, for the first time since the USSR ended, posted that the US was a major security threat to Russia: http://news.yahoo.com/putin-names-united-states-among-threats-russian-security-110515740--business.html Vladimir Putin is a very savvy person. The fact that he has felt safe enough to publicly state the USA is a major security threat to them means he feels safe enough to unite anti-US sentiment behind his banner. People with a beef with the US now have a powerful public ally - What that means remains to be seen. Racial tensions are higher than they were since the Civil Rights era, crime is skyrocketing, job participation is at its worst ever and the greatest enemy the US ever had now has its feet again. So my question is: What do you think the US should do about it? Do you think it -can-? Is it failing?

You could point out that Arab slave traders owned far more slaves for a far longer time than Europe did, and thus disallow references to the Ottoman Empire(Turkey), Egypt, the Crimean region, the Barbary Coast and Nubia as they clearly are upsetting to you. What's good for the goose, after all.

The only memorable unfriending I had was when a former member was posting angry stuff about gay marriage. Specifically, about how people should be forced to endorse gay marriage through the providing of services. I said, "We all deserve the right to freedom of conscience. Should Katz's Delicatessen be forced to provide service to a Neo-Nazi rally if they decide they want their delicious Reuben sandwiches? Should a Buddhist Temple be forced to rent their space to an NRA gathering ? If we disagree strongly with someone, should we be forced to tacitly endorse them through the providing of specific services? Should a religious group be forced to marry someone if they feel that's a sin? If a religious group believes something is a sin, shouldn't they be able to refuse to endorse that sin?" She responded, "Which religion? There are lots of religions that don't think homosexuality is a sin. Be very careful, as I have someone very close who is gay." And I responded, "If there are very many who think it isn't a sin, why not go to one of those groups? Why force someone who disagrees with something you or somebody else does to provide a service if there are other options?" Poof. Unfriended. I was a little sad in a vague way, but if she didn't want to hear opposing viewpoints, she shouldn't be posting anything controversial in public spaces.

Please take a half an hour out of your life to watch this: This is a discussion on what has happened, what the world is currently working on, why this is occurring and what our options are. If you lean left, right or centrist, it will challenge you on some level, but it is vital information for making things work in the current world conflicts. Please watch it and let me know what you think. I suspect a lot of you will end up being subscribed to freedomainradio, because it is about as independent in news as you can get.

I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK, the average teacher quits in the first 5 years. Beginning teachers earn about £30, 000/year($60, 000 currently). Head of year, about £70, 000($140, 000/year) and Headmasters, £100, 000/year(About $200, 000). I am currently going back to school to finish my training myself because, in addition to this, there is a £30, 000 incentive for IT teachers who are willing to get teacher certification. This is because UK teaching is very, very difficult. You are micromanaged. Your work takes you far in to the night. You have to manage both parent expectations(Failing a child is ridiculously difficult) and stress is high. Because of this, despite very good wages, teachers are in desperate short supply. But with a $60, 000 bursary as per: https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/bursaries-and-funding - I can put up with a difficult 5 years. That's a very sizeable down payment on a house.

I apologize. Can you be more specific what you meant? I had assumed you meant you were just going to try to win by living righteously. But I would like to know what was fallacious about that. Can you tell me which fallacy I used and why it was a fallacy?

Right. Remember that the last Book of Mormon prophet died alone and on the run in the wilderness after all his countrymen were slaughtered. And also remember what Brigham Young said when people said they were going to forego common sense and rely exclusively on the Priesthood. The whole talk is at: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/healing-the-sick?lang=eng But I have highlighted the relevant part: Trust in God. Believe in Him, but don't forget to do your part. In this case, trying to have a vague understanding of the enemy you're fighting.

That wouldn't help. There would still be terrorist attacks. Baali, for instance, had a horrible attack and nobody has ever said, "Boy, Baali really needs to stop its Empire You certainly could define it. Yjacket made some good points. How do you intend to fight an enemy you don't understand?

What do you think their motivations are?

These attacks are logical. Terrorism is not what you think it is. These people have declared war on the west but simply don't have the means to wage it effectively. If you provided tanks, jets, drones and nuclear weapons, I promise you they would not be using suicide bombers any more. There are reasons for why groups like ISIS hate the west, but I will illustrate this in a historical context. In ancient Rome, their civilization was borne on the backs of the military. Early Rome had citizens passionate about expanding the power of Rome and believed very firmly in the superiority of Rome. Later, Romans became lax about their support of Rome. Nobody wanted to fight in the army any more, so Rome used its considerable wealth to hire mercenaries to fight and die on their behalf. Those mercenaries eventually saw fit to loot Rome. Draw that analogy to the US. The US became Empire on the back of its workers. The West(And the US in particular) did not win World War 2 because its soldiers were braver or better trained or its equipment was superior in technology. The US simply outproduced them. Due to greed and a simple unwillingness to do certain jobs, much of the US's production capabilities have been stripped bare. This is compounded with the US's simple weariness and the reduction in nationalism in the US. Like Rome, many of the US citizens do not see the US as a beacon of civilization and morality and so the sacrifice that was expected in the past is simply not coming now. Instead, the US has turned its production(Its source of power, similar to the Roman's military) to external sources. We are not more enlightened than the Romans were even if we'd like to think so. And the terrorists are just Huns and Visigoths doing exactly what those Huns and Visigoths do. Do they have reasons for what they do? Sure. So did the Huns. That doesn't make much difference to the average Western citizen just like it didn't make much difference to the average Roman citizen. Because of this, there are only three basic things you can do: 1) We can do what the Romans did and ignore it. Some day, maybe in a single night of a massive terrorist strike or maybe over generations of decline, we fall and the next Empire takes its place. 2) We can decide enough is enough and become brutal like Russia. Vladimir Putin dealt with Chechnya using overwhelming violence and civil rights violations. While this would stop the Terrorists, it would destroy everything the West has stood for. Civil liberties and rights would be destroyed, but the Terrorists wouldn't win. Tyranny would. This would either be by stripping all citizens of rights and privacies or simple draconian enforcement. 3) We can become Isolationists. Overnight, things we take for granted would no longer be affordable. The world economy would crash with all the pain and universal heartache that would cause. That's it - Those are our choices: Do nothing, become tyrants or remove ourselves from the game entirely. Terrorists do not have a central command. They do not have supply lines. There is no way to know if you've won the war on terror because there is no one to sign the peace treaty. They hide in groups of innocents. The scary thing is: We are utterly impotent at stopping a terrorist strike. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people, they will. Draconian gun laws didn't save Paris from the shootings. Americans with lax gun laws didn't stop the Oklahoma City bombings or the various mass shootings that have occurred, either.

Borrowing £1000000? Base fee of(Say) £100000 to do so. It's not interest and so is not usurious. Not a bad deal, actually.

Hahah. Very true. British Petroleum may have had something to do with interest in overthrowing the Iranian government. But the nameless group is the one who actually sent in someone who may have been a descendent of a President of some country to do the dirty work. The problem is that the Iran government is democratically elected. The majority of the country lives in rural areas and votes conservative religious with the fewer city-living people voting more progressive and western. On the other hand, if the US can successfully export its culture as it has in places around the world, they might start voting differently. As it is right now, trying to replace the regime is the opposite of wanting Democracy to fluorish and the arguments suggesting it should be done regardless sound like they should have been written by The Grand Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov.

Wow. Things in Iran are definitely messed up, now. If only the region hadn't been destabilized in 1953 by a... group. That shall remain nameless. That begins with a U, has an S in the middle and ends in an A. If only this nameless group hadn't staged a coup that resulted in a consistent religious hegemony elected democratically by the vast majority of Iranians. And if only this same group hadn't armed terrorists in the 1980s to attack and try to overthrow their government. If this hadn't happened, the region might be very different. All joking aside: The US exports one thing better than anything else - Its culture. The key to changing Iran is to change hearts and minds. The more ammunition given for them to get angry at... Whatever the nameless group that overthrew their government in the 1950s is(I don't want to offend anybody who may be associated with that group and may feel defensive if it is pointed out that Iran's foreign policy is in no small part influenced by the decades of violence and destabilizing influence of said group), the US will know when it is close to winning in Iran when the first McDonalds opens up there. It might take decades for the old guard to die off completely, but if the US concentrated on making the right inroads, things would eventually change.

I love that song. I'm learning to play it on the Ukulele to play for my wife on our anniversary when I take her out. She doesn't know. It's a really easy song to learn, too, with only 3 repeating chords in the d-d-u-u-d-u pattern. If you've played the Ukulele for 2 months or more, you should be able to play it with a little practice. It's also the saddest volcano love song I've ever heard.

Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing more about this. Obviously, you have the text that Brigham Young spoke during that general conference, correct? Can you point me to it? I want to know exactly what was said, and how, so that I might better understand where Brigham Young was coming from.

I've never heard of church members distancing themselves from Brigham Young. Can you quote source? Heck - I'm a convert and Brigham is one of my favourites.

Faith the size a mustard seed and you can tell a mountain to remove itself and it would. I assume it works that way with animals, too. Ultimately, -always- make sure that you're praying with God's intent in mind and not yours and you won't go wrong.

There are always conspiracies. You've probably been part of one yourself - Maybe to throw a surprise birthday party, maybe to keep your friend from realizing how hideous her haircut was. As for global conspiracies, I tend to not believe them. 9/11 was probably not an inside job despite the US being involved in some provable false-flag conspiracies, but JFK was probably assassinated due to a conspiracy. I just can't buy the JFK magic bullet theory. Unless they included that said bullet invented a time machine, went back in time and took out Gandhi. In that case, that's just too cool not to believe.

Talk to the Bishop of the YSA branch. I'm sure it'll be fine.

I don't really perceive this to be any more of a big deal than it would be if someone from your congregation went to the LDS church. It really depends on the family. However, I suspect based upon your use of this LDS member as having a 'New found' faith in Christ that you don't have very much respect for her families religion. That might make it difficult if you want to speak to them. Really, just think about what you would want if your daughter said she was going to start attending the LDS church instead of yours. Go at it from that perspective and you'll probably know what to do.

I think I will quote the Saviour when he was approached by people who were angry that marriage seemed too hard for men. Specifically, this occurred when men were told they weren't allowed to divorce save for instances of adultery. "For there are some Eunuchs , which were so born from their mothers womb: And there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men. And there be eunuchs, which have made of themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Basically, hey - If you can't get married, no big deal. Just don't sleep around. Consider that part of your life cut off and accept it and you're listening to the Saviour.

It does not, actually. Within the same job, women have a tendency to earn less. Much of this can be put down to the number of women who take time off for maternity leave and to raise kids during their highest earning potential years. Hence why I said that numbers are thrown around with no regard to their context. I also see many of the Men's Rights activists using the exact same tactics and using statistics without context to back up their argument. You talk about how the majority of men feel the same as you. That is not true. I have been to no wards - And I have travelled a lot for work - Where the men didn't want to get married and those who were married said not to. None. Not even one. Anecdotal, but that comprises several dozen wards.

Meh. It was just a few men feeling victimized and helpless because certain parts of the deal are stacked against them. 1) Men are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than women: http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r512.html That's bad. 2) Women are far more likely to be victims of sexual crime than men: http://nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf That's bad. 3) Women are far more likely than men to leave their job to take care of kids in the middle of their highest earning potential times. This results in women suffering more from poverty. That's bad/good. 4) Men are far more likely to lose out in divorces. That's bad. 5) Men are far more likely to suffer workplace fatalities than women are. Overwhelmingly, more than 13 times as likely. http://amptoons.com/blog/2007/03/05/workplace-deaths-are-overwhelmingly-male/ That's bad. 6) Women only earn about 66% of what a man earns. That's bad. There are so many statistics thrown about without context and meaning to them. We're creating a culture of entitlement and outrage. You can either live your life in fear or not. You can live your life in rage over barely comprehended statistics or not. I choose not.