Vort

Lots of explosions! Giant metallic robots! Plot? Irrelevant!

Thanks, john doe, but I know it can't be aimed at me. I'm easily the most popular and best-liked person on the site.

I don't understand this (admittedly common) line of reasoning. Did Jesus suggest that a man committing adultery with a woman "in his heart" was equally as bad as committing adultery with her in his bedroom? His point was quite the opposite: The law requires purity of genitals, but his higher law required purity of thought itself. No, thinking bad thoughts is not as evil as acting on those bad thoughts. In case this is not self-evident.

As a perhaps unnecessary reminder: This is the "Christian Beliefs Board", which specifically means non-LDS Christian beliefs. It's axiomatic that a Latter-day Saint would find his own beliefs more sensible than someone else's. Not sure that anything is gained by making such a remark here. No, I'm not a mod. Just saying.

My wife earned her Master's degree and was ABD for her PhD before she decided, with only minor regard to the opinions of her husband and parents, to leave school and dedicate herself to child rearing full-time. I don't recall a single instance where she was discouraged from her educational path by leaders, or for that matter by members. LDS leaders', members', and men's antipathy toward female education has been very grossly exaggerated, in my experience.

If I were in your position, I would definitely wait for my wife. But I'm not exactly a certifiable HP lunatic, especially with regards to the movies.

How much does your husband care about Harry Potter? How big a deal is it to see it together? If the answer to either question (and especially the latter) is "Not very much", then go enjoy the show.

I note with grim humor that "dairy" still makes up a significant part of the recommended diet. You don't suppose this might have anything to do with the massive government subsidies for dairy farmers, do you? Fact: Dairy milk is food designed for baby cows, not humans. Fact: Digesting milk sugar (lactose) requires an enzyme (lactase) that all infant mammals produce -- including infant baby humans -- but that almost no adult mammals produce, since they don't suckle their mothers as adults. Fact: Outside of Europe (especially northern Europe), some Jewish populations, and a few places in eastern Asia, the vast majority of adult humans, like all other adult mammals, do not manufacture lactase. Fact: When someone is called "lactose intolerant", that is another way of saying that they are a normal adult human that lacks the genetic mutation to keep producing lactase past infancy. (In other words, milk is not "normal human food" except for those who happen to have the lactase production mutation.) Fact: The majority of humans throughout history have lived their lives without drinking milk. Fact: Milk consumption thickens the mucus and thus is a factor in worsening sleep apnea, allergies, and colds.I have nothing against milk consumption. I drink it myself (though not as much as I used to, and mostly in breakfast cereal). My family members are all big milk drinkers. But the government has a very large political vested interest in dairy production, and that is by far the most reasonable explanation for the USDA's continued insistence of making "dairy" an integral part of the recommended food consumption table, whether pyramidal or any other shape. It would be lovely to have a government that consistently put people's well-being above political gain, though such an idea is laughably naive. Prepare to keep paying to turn corn into ethanol for the foreseeable future, however inefficient and stupid such an idea may be.

The "Adult Advice" forum is rarely used. Most issues can be discussed in open forum.

The so-called "positive whenever" is another Pittsburhese usage. But these variations in usage are not wrong per se. They are just distinct ways of using the vocabulary items. In contrast, this thread addresses established sayings or proverbs or common phrases that people misunderstand or otherwise mangle.

In English, especially in the US but also in the UK, the particle "to" is often dropped from the indirect object. (Maybe it's technically a preposition, but it looks like a particle to me.) Example: "I gave her a kiss" instead of "I gave a kiss to her."

That's very sweet. Thanks.

Now you are falsely putting words in my mouth. Let's review: You claimed that: I think it is a dangerous proposition when someone (especially a member) tell someone else that they are disloyal, "attacking" or a hypocrite for sharing what they honestly think feel [sic] and believe. I replied: Can you share what "honestly think feel and believe" have to do with anything? I then gave an example to clarify: For example, If I "honestly think feel and believe" that Thomas Monson is a liar and a fraud, how does it being my honest opinion change the fact that it is disloyal and hypocritical? You, um, well...you never did respond to that.As far as I can tell, you believe that if you "honestly think feel and believe" something, it is not disloyal, attacking, or hypocritical to share it. I think you are wrong. I brought up an obvious counterexample to demonstrate that you are wrong. You have refused to acknowledge or address my counterexample; rather, you suggest (wrongly, though I hope not intentionally dishonestly) that I am equating calling the prophet a liar with disagreeing with the Church's teachings in an area. Any reasonably intelligent critical reader who is fluent in English could tell you that you are wrong, yet you refuse to recognize this.Why? Indeed I did. Consider your allegation denied. If I want to call you a liar, I will state, "saintish is a liar." Only to those who can't parse English well. Hypocrisy = false face Saint = someone devoted through covenant to building up the kingdom of God Disloyalty = reneging on one's covenant commitments ∴Saint who disloyally tears down the Church or criticizes its teachings = hypocrite Indeed. I await your justification. Indeed I did. How does this constitute backpedaling? I have seen above. You have yet to cite justification for your ad hominems. Do you recognize any hypocrisy in yourself for saying such a thing? It is you, not I, who have been spewing the ad hominems and getting upset. No. I was making a general comment. If you decided the shoe fit you and put it on, that's your problem, not mine. Okay, I will. But in return, you have to respond to all of my questions and points. Taking only from your last several posts: Do you honestly equate calling the Prophet a liar to disagreeing with a particular policy? (Of course, this is false; I never did any such thing.) Who’s “many of us” you got a family of mice in your pocket? (Are you seriously suggesting that there are not many in the Church who hold this same opinion? This is so obviously wrong that I am slightly stunned you would try to argue the point, whether or not you happen to agree with it.) Disagreeing with policy is not attacking policy. (Nor did I say it was. This was a false allegation on your part.) When you equate disagreeing with disloyalty and hypocrisy and make false accusations of such you discourage people from sharing what they think, feel and believe. You “brainwash” them into thinking that they can’t ever disagree with the establishment or share an opinion contrary to official policy or doctrine. (This is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Making such a statement, no matter how far-fetched, is not in any possible sense "brainwashing". This statement is so utterly wrong it is comical.) I will not continue a conversation with anyone who insults me in the insufferable manner that you have Vort. (The existence of this statement is self-negating; therefore, by definition, it is wrong.) I can't help it if I disagree with this matter. (How much wronger can you get?) There are some instances of you being undeniably, blatantly wrong, collected from just your last few posts here.

I think it's called "General Discussion".

To be fair, in casual American speech "could have" and "could of" sound identical. But I often see people write "could of", "would of", "should of", "might of", and so forth.

I don't mind alternate pronunciations or ways of saying things. I teased my wife about her Pittsburghese when we got married, but when she started changing her speech, I told her I didn't want that. Her "redding up the room" and "running the sweeper" is part of the charm of hearing her. I admit that I do get a little bothered by people saying things totally wrong. No one (well, only one person) laughed at my "could of" example. I fear it's because no one realized it was wrong... I am a writer and sometimes-editor, and as such I need to be aware -- hyperaware -- of spelling and word usage. Ironically, I have spent years trying to DEsensitize myself to such things because I felt like taking critical note of such speech or writing habits was negatively affecting my opinion of the speaker or writer.

Perhaps you can figure out a better response to "having grown up I better grasp what I do and what my value is/should be." It's the man getting screwed by lack of insurance, not the woman, yet somehow it's still the man's fault for "undervaluing" his wife. (No offense intended to Gwen. I'm very fond of Gwen. I just encounter the subtle and not-so-subtle anti-male bias seemingly at every turn, and sometimes I get tired of it.)

If that is all you meant, then forgive me for taking offense. For the record, I do not particularly enjoy debate. I do enjoy discussion, and I appreciate those who go further than merely to state their opinion, as if that alone has any effect or relevance.

On behalf of my sons, the oldest of whom is missionary age today, thanks for the positive feedback. I think young men generally don't get much of that.

That it is typical does not mean that it's not extra. Of course it costs extra to insure your mortgage.

But it does not follow that disagreeing with a position automatically turns it into a debate. So in what way do you believe you can "count on me" to turn a discussion into a debate?

In my opinion: Yes, it is indeed possible to abuse the power of Priesthood blessings. We are expected not to require a Priesthood blessing for every event in life, just as we are expected not to have to pray every time we buy a can of beans to make sure it's the right can. That said, it is also my opinion that overuse of Priesthood power and blessings is probably not something we normally need to worry about. If anything, the opposite is the case.

Why? Because I disagree with your assertion?

Yes, I was. That was the whole point of the example.

Sure. I didn't go to medical school.