dash77

I have heard from a number of LDS women that there are women who purposely purchase larger garmnts, so they can reveal more cleavage. With that said, I agree with you that women who do not want to wear baggy clothes should not and to some degree normative clothing can be form-fitting. However, there is another side to the story that does not always get explained.

Backroads: Please explain -- how do you see this as a perception problem?

Eowyn: I agree with what you are saying and I agree that within the church, I think more women who are larger up top do not try to show off. However, I am just wondering if the OP's wife changed 5 years ago after she worked with another woman who did dress immodestly, due to the fact that she learned that there are men (more non-LDS, but some LDS) that like to look and perhaps she learned that being gazed at is a fun and exciting thing. I think there are some women who are rasied in the church who dress modestly that learn later in life that dressing immodestly can be a real sinful thrill. Its just a thought and I might be way off base.

OK -- but do you think there are some women who like the attention? I know there are some women who have large breasts that do not want the attention (having an extra burden) and some that desperately wish they were smaller. But are there some women who like the attention? And could there be some women who actually like to be gazed on, and as such, having larger breasts could pose as a temptation for them to dress less modetly? I am not making a generlaization that all women are like this -- but can there be some and can the OP's wife possible be afflicted with this?

Eowyn: Thanks for your reply. In no way would I understand your situation and in no way do I want to undermine your feelings. Although I know it happens, I can’t imagine how demoralizing it must be for men to star at your chest while in conversation. Further, it sounds like you are conscious of your size and are demonstrating what my one post outlined – you are doing your best and going the extra mile not to bring attention to them. That is all I was suggesting. But don’t you think there are some women – both members and non-members – who like the attention? And if so, don’t you think liking the extra attention could become a real temptation for some women (and so I do not seem sexist, I would say the same thing for men related to sexual attributes – but with men it more talk than an actual visual)?

Obviously, however, can you explain the error in my thinking?

I think there are some gems of wisdom in Starrynights post. Understanding others is always a good first step. With this said, however, in a society that is obsessed with a "bigger-is-better" breast size mentality, I have always thought that Christian women who are larger up top have a moral imperative to work harder at being modest (and the same related to men). That might not be fair to women who are naturally larger – but I think it’s more of a duty. I have also wondered, and observed, that if dressing modestly is more difficult for women who are larger up top because of the attention. This might be way off base, but maybe your wife has recently learned of how being larger up top can (sadly) command attention.

MOE: You might be right also. In time, I guess, we will see. Where I live many non-LDS Christain dominations are turning to super large entertainment type churches. Maybe I am old fashion, but i like small and intimate. But having larger churches can help singles meet eachother. So, I guess with time we will find out.

I might be wrong, but like other Christian dominations, I think this new building will be super huge and will be more like attending a BYU football game than an intimate place to fellowship. I hope I am wrong.

Don't be fooled or exploited by the TV commerials that dramatisze the benefits and say nothing about the negattives.

I have decided this is my very last post on the subject because Salrin outlines the problem. Without trying to be rude, Salrin, your last post underscores how utterly uneducated you are, and quite frankly ignorant, about the academic research process (I am not calling you uneducated and ignorant as a general disposition, just related to this topic). The study in Open Medicine went through a double blind review which is the highest degree of rigor in research. The home of the journal, in double blind reviews, is completely irrelevant. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine is housed in the state of Massachusetts; this does not mean it has a bias toward research in this state. You probable have no idea what a double blind review even is, because if you did, you would realize how utterly foolish your comments are about the journal being housed in Ontario. The comment that studies can always show what a person wants it to show is valid only when a person does not understand research and can’t explain the methodological flaws. Although all research has limitation, a double blind review looks at the methodological soundness and not if someone dislikes or likes the results. In your last post, in essence, you state that you know more about research than probable the 5-7 blind reviewers (who are real experts in research methodologies) and know more than the associated editor and editor of the journal. You comments are so very narcissistic. The Institute of Medicine is one the United States most credible medical establishments. Again, I am blown away with your overall education level pertaining to this subject matter. And then, you provide a news paper article from world net daily to support your views. Newspaper s are good to provide a very broad snapshot of life, but everyone knows that newspaper change stories to create controversy to sell them. They are not credible at all and are written at the reading and thinking level of someone in junior high school (literally, I am not just saying this). Anyway, I am done posting on this topic due to the low level of credible thinking on this subject matter. I have laid out an evidence based argument based on real academic research. I get back you tube clips, news paper article and a person who actual thinks Canada is like the Soviet Union. Further, I have made my point clear, government run health care in Canada, versus the United States, is more effective, efficient, and I honestly believe more Christ-like. I just can’t see the Savior letting 18,000 die each year so that insurance companies can make millions off of their deaths. I see the Savior as being willing to pay more in taxes to stop death and dying. I am not suggesting that socialism is the preferred government, but in related to health care, a government run model in Canada is known as the best in the world and is better than the for-profit market model in the united States, which claims to be a Christian nation, but literally lets thousands die for the pursuit of capital.

Saldrin: I assumed you had already looked at the two links I have provided. Please go back to post # 37 and post #75 and see the links. Likewise, please go back to post #12 that I wrote, although I did not provide references, all are from academic sources-- not wikipedia and youtube clips or people simply making things up from the top of their minds or referecing a single personal experience. With this said, I think its time for me to stop interacting on this topic. I would continue if there were credibile sources adn thinking, but arguing against someone who things that Canada is a Stanlist country or another person who uses a poorly thought our analogy about someone holding a gun to someone head or another person who thngs there are death panels in countries like Canada is so far from reality, its not worth my time to discuss.

I have two basic comments. The first is that the comments based on stanlism, etc. is nothing more than a distracting technique. We are talkng about if government health care is more effective and efficient and more Christ-like. I have provided real research statistic from Canada health care and the reply is Canada is Stanlism? Again, if people think Canada is a Stanlist country you are absolutely dillusional. When people make up absoutely delusional thoughts and act on them, it is sometimes refered to as mental illness! These comments (just-a-guy thinkng Canadain health care is Stanlism) and the one below from Funky town, is equal to a person stating that smoking does not cause cancer --despite statistical evidence that it does -- and can find a single person who smokes to lives a long life to prove their point. Its delusional. Second, the statistical evidence is that health care in Canada is a little better than the United States effective and efficient) and does not contribute to 18,000 deaths per year, which equals to about a quarter of a million deaths every 12 years or so. I have provided statistical evidence from real academic sources -- it is the truth, even if people want to simply make things up from the top of their minds to blind them to real life events. And again, I think the Savior would chose the Canada model because its about helping the down trodden, its not profit off of death and suffering.

Just a guy: You are so absolutely blinded by an ideaology its scary. Canada and the Canadain model of health care is not a Stalinist regime and is not an absolutist country. Related to this subject, you thinking is either extremly fundamentalist or extremly dysfuntional that has no connection to reality (or maybe both). Canada is a democracy that has a government run health care system supported by free people. It is not Stalinist not like the old Soviet Union. Its a real democracy where the people have chosen national health care due to its clear benefits of helping others.

Just-a-guy: You have a completely oversimplified perspective and I’m sure it helps you justify your potion against government health care. Talysin is correct, the type of help you get is subjective if you do not have health care. In Bytebaears situation, his friend was given treatment, in my friend’s situation he was left to die. Persona stories views are not helpful, for every good story out there (such as Bytebear) t, there is another bad one. Replying on person experience is not a good method to understand good public policy. Real top-notch research is the only true indicator and credible research suggests that 20% of the U.S population does not have insurance and 18,000 people DIED due to lack of health care in the United States. These numbers are from real research documents. Some of you can babble, anyone can write whatever they want on this website, and people can quote Thomas Payne and Ronald Reagan. Others can try to make completely silly analogous. The real problem with this debate is that few people debating have the skills to understand research. But the truth of the matter is this. 18,000 people die in the United States each year because of lack of health insurance and that is because the health industry wants to make millions of dollars. These are not made up figures. At one time of my life I believed the American medical propaganda that is has the best medical treatment in the world. But when I learned medical and health research skiisl, including how to interpret medical research, I learned it has major problems. Of the advanced countries, the United States is the only country that lets people die – thousand – for profit. No other advanced nation does this. And the Canadian example clearly outlines – through research – that is a little more advanced and superior in treatment that America and its an example of a successful government run program. I have no problem with free market ideals in other areas – such as the auto industry – but government health care is more effective and is clearly more Christ-like. The bottom line is this – in the United States people have chosen profit over remedying illness and suffering because the people would like to save more money on taxes so they can continue to live a wealthy life (and by global standards even someone in the bottom middle class are filthy rich). There is nothing Christ-like about wanting to save money though taxation so that 18,000 people die. I think it’s much more Christ-like to pay more in takes to relive suffering and prevent 18,000 deaths a year. I have no problems paying more taxes that are specifically dedicated to universal health care. With this said, I think it’s time for me to exist this discussion. It’s becoming circular and I think my rootedness in research oriented proof does not match with others perceptive of a good discussion. However, let me make one last point – and I know I am repeating. I am for free market and I have no problem with people making profit – outside of health care. I think health care needs to be marked off and I really think the Canadian example is best (I have seen the research and have lived in both the United States and Canada). And in all honesty, I really think its a much more Christ-like public policy.

Some people here are trying to use an argument by analogy – comparing similarities to things – extremely poorly. The effects of the analogy are not convincing because of crucial differences. Anatess, your analogy does not exist in real world settings – no one is going to bring a gun to someone head. Your comments are ridiculous. Likewise, prophetofdoom – no one is stealing money and no in is taking a hamburger out of your mouth. These are very silly analogies . The comparison I am making is very real and exists between governments. The Canadian health care system really does require people to pay more taxes, it really is a bit more superior to American health care, and it really does not deny people coverage. The American model really does cause people to pay lower taxes, it really does cause medical industry to make millions, it really does contribute to 18,000 deaths per year, it really does contribute to bankruptcy, and it really does exclude about 20% of the population. Both residents of Canada and the United States live in extremely rich countries with extremely rich live styles. These are very real. No one is answering the question of which is more Christ-like. I asked the question and all I am getting back are these extremely silly analogy about putting guns to peoples head that do not exist in real life setting. So let me answer it. I believe that because I was born in an extremely rich country (United States) that because I have so many wealthy privlesges – even growing up lower-middleclass that I think it is more Christ-like to pay more taxes, so the less fortunate can have basic health care coverage. Like the Savior, it’s about giving to others. Paying more in taxes, like in Canada, still causes medical doctors to be wealthy and does not cause people like me to end up dirt poor. It also helps people who fall on hard time. It’s being a Good Shepard and does not prevent self-reliance. In fact, I think people use the view that it prevents self-reliance in an extremely selfish manner, so that people have more money that by global standards is already filthy rich. They use scriptures and gospel doctrines for self benefit, which in the book of Mormon is known as priest craft. I am still waiting to hear others reply to the question of which health care system is more Christ-like.

I am still waiting for an answer to this question: So, what is more Christ-like? Having a real system like Canada where people pay more in taxes for health care (people who are living in one of the most riches countries in the world) that has superior health care where everyone is taken care of, or a system like the United States where 20% of the population is not covered, 18,000 people die due to this, and insurance agencies make millions of dollars in profit. I see a lot of side stepping, irrevant quotes, and the misuse of logic fallcies. Again, these are two very real health care approaches, which is more Christ-like?

Dravin: It is not a straw man fallacy –there is no attacking of untrue events. The statistics I am giving are from top notch research articles and agencies. 18,000 deaths are attributed to people not having health care insurance in the United States. These are real people that suffer and die. Research from top notch academic journals – not Wikipedia sources, clearly outline that the Canadian social government model to health care is superior to the American profit market model. So, what is more Christ-like? Having a real system like Canada where people pay more in taxes for health care (people who living in one of the most riches countries in the world) that has superior health care where everyone is taken care if, or a system like the United States where 20% of the population is not covered, 18,000 people die due to this, and insurance agencies make millions of dollars in profit. The charity model you are suggesting, Darvin, is causing 18,000 people to die each year. There is nothing straw-man about this – these are two health care approaches that exist in real world settings. Which is more Christ-like?

So, what is a more Christ-like value: Paying more in taxes (in the most riches nations – US., Canada, Britain, etc. – where by global standards we are filthy rich) or letting people literally die so that corporations can gain millions?

Funky town: You are exemplfying the very think I am suggesting. Your sourcewatch source regarding the concerning aspects of the Institute of Medicine is not an academic source. Find me an academic source that questions the Intitute of Medicine. You are replying on a polical source to provide a political concern. And while you are at it, please try to find concerns with the first study and journal (Open Medecine Journal)

I think what happens in discussion such as these is that people have uneducated predetermined thoughts that they simply follow in a docile manner and then go to easy and non-education sources to support their views. At one time I thought American health care was the best in the world because I simply followed what I was told like a docile being, but as I because educated in the process (I hold a Ph.D. in a health area and work with all sorts of health experts, including medical doctors) I have changed my position because of objective research – not on fact sheets from the Kaiser foundation or referencing Wikipedia. Let me give two examples of people who have uneducated predetermined thoughts. First, Saldrin disagrees with me that in the United States people who do not have health insurance die (see post # 52). Please see the link below regarding what the Institute of Medicine’s research outlines -- 18,000 unnecessary deaths are attributed to lack of insurance. Institute of Medicine Calls for Universal Health Insurance by 2010 When I lived in Salt Lake City (some 20 years ago) I worked with a friend who had cancer and his insurance would not cover a bone-marrow transplant, even though such a treatment would have increased his possibility to live in a significant manner. I was in charge of some of the fundraising efforts. The end story is we could not raise enough funds, and he died. I am sure the stress of the fundraisering, coupled with him and his wife and two children’s decision to try to even sell their homes for enough money for the treatment, added even greater stress to him and his family. I think people like Saldrin like to cling onto uneducated myths so that they can protect themselves -- by thinking something is untrue, when it is true, they can then protect themselves from the truth that there individual ideologies actual causes people to die. Simply stated, those people who argue for a free market profit oriented health care system and vote this way actual contribute and are responsibility for the deaths of others. American’s are really good at pointing the finger of personal responsibility on everyone but their own self’s. The United States is the ONLY developed country that does not provide universal health care and the only country that makes a profit off of death and illness. My friend that died years ago was denied a bone marrow transplant due to finical reasons – it was not profitable to the insurance company that made missions of dollars that year. And how such people can rectify that they are good Christians and support a profit driven medical system that clearly puts profit before saving lives is by believing in uneducated truths. I think that is why the phrases that ignorance is bliss is true. For the record, I have no problems with free market and profit driven when death is not lying in the balance. I have no problems, for example, with a free market profit driven mentality when selling and buying cars (the auto-industry). But I think government needs to be the delivery system of health care to stop the profit mentality, which ideology clearly contributes to death and suffering. And the Canadian example illustrates that a government system can do this in most cases better than the United States (and the link I provided in post # 37 is not some simply stat sheet from a foundation, it is objective research in a non-partisan academic journal that has a rigorous blind review process – they reason foundation research often does not appear in real academic journals is because its not rigorous enough or is too flawed to be published). A profit driven mentality in health care, as opposed to other industries, is bad and completely un-Christian is because death and suffering lie in the balance, it’s not like purchasing other goods, like a car, or computer. Here is my second example of uneducated predetermined thoughts. Just-a-guy has taken a very small section of the article I provided and has completely mininsterpeted it (see post # 53). Anyone that knows anything about research knows that the abstract summaries the key findings and below is the abstract form the article, note the final interpretation. Government health care in Canada is a little better than American health care. It’s a better system that has a little better health care outcomes that makes no profit off of other people and covers EVERYONE – no one dies when they do not have health insurance. No one has to mortgage there homes to survive and it’s more effective system!!! "Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better. Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."

Sali: In regard to your last post, when people do not have insurance in the United States (the Christain nation) and get sick, the collective will is to literally have them suffer and die because more profit can be gained this way rather than help.

Dravin: Yes, in regard to health care I am argueing that government redistrubution of sources seems to be a more effective manner for public good than a free market model. The study with the link I provided provides academic and statistical evidence for this postion. Further, being that the comparision between American insured and Canadain insured is not even fair -- 20% of American's are not insured and are usually taken out of sample in compaision statistics, it further underscores that the Canada model of universal health care is superior to the American model of free market.

Sali: I am sorry I overlooked your past posts. I am empathize with you. It’s too bad that there are so many so-called Christians who can preach about personal responsibility, but can’t seem to act personally responsible in order to help the downtrodden. . People like Anatess, are rooted in a personal responsibility paradigm and can’t seem to link how personal responsibility can extend to social responsibility in literally helping those people who are good people, but have fallen on hard times (these are the so-called friends of Job in the Bible). They like to classify people into oversimplified categories – those who do not have medical insurance are all “bad” and “lazy” people (e.g., they can’t plan ahead) and it’s a sign that God has forsaken them and those people who have made it from rages to riches– like Benjamin Franklin – these are good people that God blesses. The health care issue represents life – it’s a complicated issues that requires complicated and sophisticated thinking. In the end, I can’t see the Savior harping on a person because they did not “plan ahead” enough – even when people make honest human errors and even when people create their own problems, the Savior tries to help.

I do not have the time resources to respond back to every single comment by the differing people who oppose my thinking. So, I will simply make a few sweeping comments. First, I will continue debating this issue when someone can go into the link below and share with me the flaws. This is not a mere opinion or something from Wikipedia (although Wikipedia does have its place) – it’s a true academic journal article. It is from the Open Medicine journal – which is an independent, international general medical journal that is peer review. The link below is an extensive study that systematically reviewed 38 studies in a comparison manner between Canada and the United States. The universal care system in Canada (what Republications call the socialist system) was equal to American health care and in some cases, quite superior. The difference is no one is denied in Canada. See the link below. A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array Second, the thought that the free market system is always more effective and efficient than government is not true. In some places, free market can be better, in others it can be worse. If anyone is paying attention we just had the government bailout numerous private market agencies because of poor decisions and the greedy personalities that come when millions of dollars are on the line. Government saved free market! The study above clearly outlines that government run health care is equal or better than the United States and it denies no one and is cheaper because Canadian health care does not have to pay million on advertising to compete with other organizations. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, past editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, drug companies pay about 50% of their overall budget on advertisement. If they stopped competing, drugs would cost about 50% less than they do now. Third, I have a personal value that health care should be given to all people – I think it’s the Christ-like thing to do. Would the Savior deny cancer treatment to someone who had a smoking addiction and send them off to die? Should we pass off our public and social responsibility for mega for-profit corporations? I have no problem with someone – a car salesperson – who makes profit on selling a care. But making a profit on someone dying – denying treatment to make millions of dollars – does not sound like something the Savior would support, so I do not either. Maybe some of you have a personal relationship with a Savior who would deny treatment to someone quite sick and ill to make money, but that is not the Savior I know and I have no problems paying higher taxes so that that people who suffer have remedy – even if that person suffering brought on the illness themselves.