Anddenex

Mindblown, NBA is not a government entity? Dang I was taught the wrong thing in school! Columbia University, government or private?

This is the only part I would have a different opinion with as a result of actually speaking with anti-Mormons, and how these anti-Mormons have used this. Mormon, represents a group of people, its teachings, and its organization. This group has a leader. If the leader -- President Young -- had authorized the attack, then the statement "The Mormons murdered a bunch of people in the Mountain Meadows Massacre" is factually correct. When a "Mormon" decided to do something on his own accord the statement no longer is factually correct because it wasn't "The Mormons" it was an individual who belonged to the Mormon Church that acted outside of its teachings and against its leader. Let me clarify, when I used to engage in debate/argument on YouTube with anti-Mormons and those I wouldn't consider anti but didn't agree with the Church I came across an interesting post/comment, "I hate the Mormons! The Mormons raped my friend"! In the same light, this isn't factually correct. To say "The Mormons" you are tying the comment to the Church, it's beliefs, its people as a whole organization. In both cases this is an individual or individuals who professed to belong to the Church but did not abide by it's teachings. So, if someone says, "The Mormons...." I will definitely consider that person "anti" depending on the scenario. They are seeking to paint a small group of individuals as the whole Church -- which isn't factually accurate. A different example. In high school a friend of mine was gunned down by a black gang -- drive by shooting. If I started using this as a tool to show how "bad" black people are -- then yes -- a person has every right to consider me "anti" black. Especially if I said, "The blacks killed my friend." Factually this is incorrect. He may have been killed by a number of black man, but it wasn't "The blacks" who killed my friend. I'm likening a small group or individual to a whole population, which would be factually incorrect and wrong to do.

This is another YouTube video that highlights what is happening also with Kyrie. I have seen few videos from this woman. and what she has shared is very interesting. If sincere, and I can't say otherwise, when someone from North Korea points out ideologies that are prevalent in America -- resembling a communist country -- it is a little concerning.

The language is the part of the point, as it mimics nicely our current president.

This about sums it up nicely:

Awesome, that is another to add to the list of what I have heard. The other one I believe was Rueben (but I hate mentioning it because my memory isn't calling it correctly -- grain of salt).

This anecdotal evidence, is about as good if I said, "Looks like Twitter's new verification policy is going well...." and then posted a tweet from Kathy Griffin who was suspended for impersonating Musk.

This is a great question, which "let you down" ultimately believes our thoughts are greater than the Lord's thoughts, or our understanding of the how and why is greater than the Lord's understanding of the how and why. Yes, I personally felt this way 13 years ago as a result of two experiences in my life. I would think the women and children who were faithful burning in the fire (in comparison to the three in the OT) were being "let down" -- so to speak. I doubt they were happy, joyful, and having a feeling of this is great while be burned alive. I like this thought of supplemental evidence -- however weak it might be in comparison to the witness of the Holy Ghost. Supplemental evidence, the simple answer to a prayer from someone who visits you at the right time. The supplemental evidence of when a person says, "I don't know why but I need to share this...", and it is exactly what you needed to hear and were praying for. The supplemental evidence of a leader who decides to take you to the DI as they were shopping for another person and wanted your company. While there, they stop at a desk, turn to you and say, "I believe this is the perfect desk for you. You mind if I purchase it for you." Little did they know, a family shared, a couple days prior I had prayed for. We had no money, our kids clothes after being washed were always on the clean but dirty floor. I cried I could not afford it. There are many other stories, but these suffice for this OP.

I know of the following tribes revealed in PB, but don't know of any particularly region like you shared: Dan, Ephraim, Manasseh, Judah, Benjamin, Levi, Asher, and one more but don't exactly remember the one shared.

Good, let's run with this thought, how far do you want this to go then. Your concern here is death, with the "assumption" it could happen. Let's continue with someone who drinks. We know that people who drink are more likely to drive drunk. Company recognizes this, recognizes the person they hired -- who is driving into work -- might actually be drunk. This might look bad on the company. This means they decide to fire or not hire someone who drinks alcohol because they might drive drunk and kill someone on their way to work. Drinking while driving carries a burden of public safety. Easy examples, Taxi drivers, truck drivers, anyone who may or potentially drive a car (car rental places that pick people up). If I follow your line of thinking, because of a known cause of death, the company can now discriminate against hiring and firing an employee for simply "drinking." I don't mind this, you signed the contract. If Kyrie signed a contract, and was asked to remove something (which he eventually did) that solves the issue right there. Making things up, creating a "reprogramming" course, so that you have to think the way they do...it appears you would be good if your company had done that to you?

Well, he is doing better than Lebron (Nets have a better record this year), and gets paid less than Lebron. So, he is out performing the self-proclaimed "GOAT" of basketball. Seems like he is doing his job. Now we are talking about something solid, with meat. If you are hired to do a job and are unable to do it, well, that goes without saying. I doubt anyone here, including myself, would complain if they let him go or suspended him to some degree/level if he played 45 minutes and only scored 3 points. That seems like a legit reason to go over ones contract who is making roughly 35 million a year. These really aren't comparable. Suspended for a post about a book. Suspended for not doing your job. Seems one is right and the other is reactive.

I'm simply following the lines of your thinking, thought. How far do you want to go. If you say, an employer should address the problem before it starts, then this can include anything and everything. I'm already good with laws in place, including anti-discrimination -- that would mean against Kyrie, those who aren't vaccinated, etc... But, correct me if I'm wrong, you are/were OK with companies discriminating against people who aren't vaccinated. If what a person does, affects their work (what they were hired to do), then the company has every right, moral right, to act in their best interest. Easy example, I don't care if you drink and your employer shouldn't also (excluding obvious work places, and we shouldn't have to go into detail if we are being honest with ourselves) unless you come to work drunk, cause a ruckus, and are unable to do the job you are being paid for. Then, this is good means to talk to someone. Or maybe, let's continue down this rabbit hole. Employer knows you drink alcohol. This isn't an organization, a private Church (including a Muslim, Christian, etc...). Employer knows that drinking has lead to many issues -- death for one. Employer pulls employee in and says, I notice you drink. We are going to suspend you without pay because you drink, and we have seen the result of what drinking "can" lead to -- not that it does. If you want to continue working and get paid you will need to stop drinking. How far do you want to take this? Is it OK to discriminate against Kyrie for his beliefs, it appears you say it is, but then you will say they can't -- anti-discrimination. EDIT: I didn't notice what the heck that costume was! Lol, took me a moment. I would say your employer and friend I suppose online needs to have a sense of humor. It's a costume. Now, if you had dressed like a hooker (unable to figure out strike through), sorry, I mean lady of the night, with a g-string, and bunny ears I might say the employer is on to something when talking to you, but that is only if you were a model and you modeled lingerie and you were modeling a competitors line of clothing.

Right, let's follow this line of thinking. An employer recognizes they hired a "trans" individual. They recognize that this "trans" may cause issues. They have seen some posts they don't agree with, separate from their job responsibilities, so they take action. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known. An employer recognizes they hired a white male Christian. They have seen some of his posts about loving God and country, which many people hate. Seeing that this might cause some issues, they take action before it turns into something worse. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known. We now are walking a thin line here and a very slippery slope. This line of thinking seems very similar to Facebook and Twitter's community guidelines. Seems to me once again something can be weaponized against people.

This is the result of some of my family members. Rather than putting the Lord first, they put their pet priority over the Lord such that they now are willing to accept the truth, lifestyle, and decisions of a telestial kingdom rather than putting the priority of the Celestial first.

This is great, in light of the irony, and maybe @Godless can give Obama one of those "teaching moments" he is talking about.

The film you are speaking of is related to the post he tweeted. The film is based from the book he posted. There are plenty of other books in book stores that do the same thing. Nothing Kyrie has done is deserving of the treatment he is receiving. Lebron James has tweeted far worse things (especially toward LEO without any punishment, and I don't remember any apology from his team nor payment to the LEO for his words). Why then is Kyrie receiving such backlash from donating money to even the team donating money? He is an easy target due to his beliefs and ideology. If Kyrie fell inline like Lebron, we wouldn't be seeing what we are right now. He doesn't need to have any remorse. He simply posted a book. How many people have posted, read, or endorsed books that are really no different than H2N? This isn't accurate. You will need to watch what he said previously. He clearly stated his post was not meant to hurt, he even said just because you post a book or documentary it does not mean you believe or support everything in it -- and that is clearly true. How often do I hear a member Democrat say, "I can still be a Democrat and not support everything in it." He also clearly stated he wasn't antisemitic himself, by saying what you already quoted. That's good. Kyrie has money back in his pocket that he shouldn't have ever felt the need to give. He can give that 500K to a more deserving entity if he wants now. The ADL appears to be another erroneous group of individuals, seems similar to the BLM. And this is what is called "reprogramming." He shouldn't need to apologize. I admire Kyrie for not backing down and doubling down against a progressive form of oppression. Something to consider, look at the difference with Kyrie and Lebron. What did Kyrie post, and what did Lebron post? Whose tweet was a verbal threat and whose wasn't. How did each team respond? How did Lebron's team handle Lebron and his hateful defamation? Any money? Any true apology to the officer and LEO? Any payment from the team to the LEO for a true written/verbal threat? Any reprogramming for Lebron until he could correctly apologize for a verbal threat to a PO? I can't find any.

I agree, and I think the answer is clear -- no. Prophetic advice doesn't change unless it is specifically countered; although, now it is more upon us as parents to teach, set rules, and guidelines. @JohnsonJones actually makes a valid point with his grandson (I think he said grandson) and dating. At this point, I would still rely on what the counsel has been as a parent (similar to what I have already done with my daughter). I'm old enough also to remember this counsel, and I believe the counsel was from Spencer W. Kimball -- originally. The counsel then was also, but if you have prayed and God has confirmed then move forward with your witness, and then do what you said in your last statement. The counsel hasn't been countered, so the counsel still remains. This counsel, if I am remembering what I had been taught and read was more based in cultural interracial differences. The divorce rates were high for interracial marriages from different cultures (i.e. American marrying Japanese). If I am remembering correctly, statistics backed this up. The counsel is sound. There are some marriages that will not work still in our day if they are culturally interracial. Example, if a friend of mine who married a woman from his mission -- Japan (also why I used the example). Their marriage ended within 10 years. But the main counsel still exists, ask God if God confirms for both of you -- move forward. The point I'm making, if the counsel previously given has not been countered, then the previous counsel remains sound. I mean, let's be frank with this counsel, soon (scripturally speaking) we will all be one. At that point, the counsel will be null and void due to heart, mind, and decisions. Looks like from this I didn't make my point clear enough. I am in agreement here. The responsibility is on us, although that really never changed, as parents to teach in a way that our children can understand. We can still use previous counsel to back it up because that is the counsel. Also, with interracial dating, my daughter maybe one. She wants to live and teach in Korea. If so, the chances are high her husband could be from Korea. If that is the case, I would use the counsel already provided along with the most important counsel -- if God confirms then move forward and add what you said, "then do what you need to do to nourish that relationship so it will last."

Yup, we’re vastly far apart on this with no agreement. As pertaining to what is happening with Kyrie, yes, this is probably accurate. As to your examples, we agree to a point, which is very different than what is happening to Kyrie. An ad-hominem can even be used, and is often used when a person describes them as a particularly thing. I am a member of the Church. The whole concept surrounding an ad-hominem is exactly that, using what the person identifies as while ignoring their claim. The ad-hominem is how we use what a person identifies as or believes in. Its the attack that is important to character or belief. Example 1: If I ran a company that had a large LDS base of customers and an employee started Tweeting about how much he hates LDS, I’d fire him immediately. We differ in our decisions here. As a boss I would look to his output. If he did his job. Worked with the employees who were LDS soundly. If he were a manager and I could see he promoted both LDS and non-LDS. I would keep him -- good employee. This is America. He can choose to hate, love, or anything in between as long as he -- personally -- doesn't threat any personal injury or harm. Example 2: "Good employer" -- We agree. Response to example 1 already addresses this. Example 3: Kyrie absolutely has the right to free speech. I'm not sure you would honestly. I haven't seen you come out -- and I admit I only know you here -- with regards to pronouns. The force of pronouns is exactly that. Are you coming out and marching at all against it? This has everything to do with 1984, which those who profess to have read it but few grasp (see what I did there?). One of the most important characters is not the main character, nor the individual who slyly caught him. It was the woman highlighted, screaming, throwing tantrum, booing, etc... The government can not gain control without the aid of that type of individual, which is exactly what we see with Kyrie. The "woman" booing, screaming, falling down, pretending offense, or making something offensible that isn't offensive. Example 4: If Kyrie didn’t realize the controversy this would create, then yes, he is dense. This isn't accurate also. We all post many things we don't know or realize what it might create or result from. A good example, Lindsay Stirling who wore a dress that was human skin toned, but looked like a risque dress (immodest). Due to the crowd she follows, there was frustration. She didn't think it would cause a stir, in her mind, still modest and technically she was right. I wouldn't call her dense. Second, this was a published book by a publisher -- not just Amazon -- and probably a smaller company. Where is the outrage for this publishing company? Where is the outrage for those who produced the film? Why all of a sudden is their outrage when this book appears to be a top 10 seller on Amazon the last I read? Nope, but they have chosen a victim who posted the book in a tweet. "Heck, I’m the dumbest guy alive and I could see this was a bad idea. " -- something you don't really believe, tongue in cheek comment. It's why you let your voice known, because you don't think you are dumb. Similar to Huge Fly Fisherman's hat "I suck at fly fishing" which he totally doesn't believe but will use it when people direct a comment toward something he said. Example 5: Kyrie does not have the right to force Twitter (or any other private company) to give him a platform. He also has no right to force the Nets to pay him or endorse his views. He's not getting paid to endorse his views by the Nets. He's getting paid to play basketball which he is very good at. I don't see anywhere where Kyrie is forcing Twitter or any other company to endorse his views. Can you show me an statement where he has made such a comment? The Nets playing him isn't endorsing anything he does, just as if I worked for Donald Trump doesn't mean I endorse him as a "good" person. I worked for Warren Buffet, does this mean I somehow endorse everything Mr. Buffet does? No. That should be pretty clear, unless someone is really dumb and dense. (Yes, simile face is indicate I'm being snarky with last comment and example 4 ending comment.) If Kyrie was being paid for what he posted, for the Nets, then the Nets have a right to act against that as that is what they are paying him to do. Example 6: Google “Coleman Bonner Gatlinburg”. This degenerate took glee in the Gatlinburg fires that killed people because they were “Trump supporters”. His employer fired him in three seconds, as they should have. And this was on a vastly smaller scale. And rightfully so with this employer. Did Kyrie post about being gleeful for the Holocaust (did I miss something here?) But, we aren't just talking about posting a book here. This would be like a Church employee who then suspends or fires a non-member for posting a anti-Mormon literature book. And yes I have read some that would like all members to be killed, and I have read comments from anti-Mormons who have said, "I wish all Mormons would die." But as an employer, a good employer, why would I fire a good employee whose views are different than mine because he posted an anti-Mormon book that is "hateful." I would as a good employer look to his actions at work, not his posts online. Suspense or firing needs to be related to the work he is providing, and how well he/she works with their team or fellow employees.

This is what I'm addressing also. Your first statement is an ad-hominem against him -- "flat earther" -- as if that justifies any attack against him. Due to this belief he has become an easy target (coupled with his vaccination decisions). If you listened to his words you will recognize he said multiple times, I'm not promoting anything that you say I am (paraphrased). He even called out the journalist who was seeking to stir the pot. Employer, that is part of being and living in America. The freedom of thought/belief. Imagine if every employer started fining and suspended employees due to a different belief? When you talk of lunacy or being dense, that is a good example of it. A good and honest employer would say, "We don't endorse Kyrie Irving's post. We respect his right to have his beliefs." Ended it there. There is no difference if a non-member posted the Book of Mormon, and then an employer suspended his employee for such because the Book of Mormon talks about color, one good and one bad. Although he doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon but there are aspects in their that vibe with him. He's not promoting everyone to be a member of the Church. He's not promoting that everyone should be baptized and that all principles in there are correct (from his perspective). Is that a burden you will also gleefully carry?

Yep, it appears so, "It’s worse." -- Oh my gosh, its worse, worse, and worse. He was given multiple opportunities to explain himself which he did -- not that he didn't. If people were actually listening. "He doubled down." -- The poor guy did what someone with a backbone does. But, but, but -- "It's worse"! "But, it’s a blessing in disguise because he showed his true colors." -- A blessing in disguise, he showed his true colors! That he believes he is an original Hebrew? Those true colors. That he doesn't allow media and the woke crowd to turn yellow. Yep, yep, looks like you are, what did you say, "A blessing in disguise and showing your true colors." Yes, i think that is about right.

Yep, and this experience with Kyrie is a perfect example of the adage stick and stones. It is one thing, although I don't agree with Kyrie, that I have liked about him. He doesn't let the "woke" mob intimidate him. He wasn't intimidated with the woke mob during the force of the vaccine. He still isn't intimidated by a woke newcast who want to demonize him. So, it isn't really a shocker that he is a target by our woke media. I agree with personal responsibility. As one media outlet mentioned paraphrased, "the interesting thing is I have never heard of this book Kyrie posted. I would have never heard about either because I'm not a follower on Kyrie's twitter account. But now I know all about this book." With all the antisemitism that has come from the left and woke crowd (The Jews are to blame ideology), it is amazing they are attacking Kyrie for the same things they have done and continue to do. That's a valid point Carb. Where do we draw the line?

You mean he explained a few times what he meant, or did you miss that? What true colors, that he believes he is an original Hebrew? That because you watch a specific document doesn't mean you believe or endorse everything in it? Did you even take time to listen to his responses? I can already see Godless didn't. No one is making him a hero, but there are people who want to demonize him -- as it appears with yourself.

He doesn't need to explain his post. He can post what he wants, let the whiners go back to bed. He could have been given thousands of opportunities and still denied it. There are tons of books in books stores that are indecent. There are tons of books, videos, etc... that people endorse that are antisemtic. Giving excuses doesn't change what it is. "No one is going to confuse an ASL user for a white supremacist." Until it happens. Because we have never seen another human being take something innocent and twist it, right? The OK sign has nothing to do with white power, which is the obvious example of the sign for the number 9 and the sign for OK. Context? You're providing excuses to justify another narrative.

The fact that he is even thinking he needs to pay for a tweet $500K is 1984 type scenario. Whether I agree with this speech or not, doesn't require him to pay $500K. He is only paying because of the woke outrage. So, in this case, we will have to agree to disagree. Definitely in agreement with the other list. I understand what 1984 was about, and this is a good sign of it. When a person feels they need to feel sorry for a book they tweet, such that they need to pay $500K, yes that is a form of oppression. It is controlling what you say, which ultimately controls what you think, and then what you feel you can say and do. EDIT: He is now being suspended because his "apology" or non-apology wasn't good enough (he $500K donation wasn't a good enough sorry)? This is exactly what 1984 is about, and the same with your posts about banks. If you don't fall inline you can't bank with us. PayPal trying to get away with the $2500 fee for misinformation -- or what they claim as misinformation (Biden's son laptop comes to mind with FB and Twitter). This woke society is getting more and more ridiculous. To add to this the Brooklyn Nets statement, "We have decided that Kyrie will serve a suspension without pay until he satisfies a series of objective remedial measures that address the harmful impact of his conduct and the suspension period served is no less than five games.” If this isn't 1984 in action...then I assume we can agree to disagree.

Interesting world, and idealogy in America, we are now living within now. Somehow Kyrie is having to pay/donate $500,000 due to a tweet that showed a book that is sold on Amazon. It's also interesting that he is the one being attacked, but not so much. He is outspoken on topics he believes and doesn't let certain things control him. So, it's not surprising. How does a person get into a difficult situation with a tweet, while Amazon remain unscathed? It's pretty obvious. Also, from what I could tell the OK sign is now racist and a sign for white power, which is also the same sign used to sign the number 9 in sign language. Some white power in the "deaf" culture now. It will be interesting to see how more closely we will follow 1984 in not so many years.