Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

The Folk Prophet

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12210

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    191

 Content Type 

Posts posted by The Folk Prophet

  2. Lady Ballers Trailer

    in Current Events

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

    Yes, it can be difficult.

    I had thought Secondhand Lions was just a small time film that didn't do all that well at the box office.  But our eccentric family just happened to love in.

    Then I started noticing how many people have come to our home shouting praises over this film.  I've stopped counting.  

    Give me Angel Studios over Daily Wire 6 days a week and twice on Sundays.

  3. Lady Ballers Trailer

    in Current Events

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    That’s cool it’s your life. Good luck with all that.

    And yes, I do think 85% of the complaining conservatives do is virtue signaling. No apologies. Some seem to complain so much that when they have legit concerns no one listens because we’re tired of hearing “Wolf! Wolf!” 

    Is it also ironic that that tends to be how I feel about your complaining about conservatives complaining. ;)

    "There goes LDSGator again, complaining about conservatives, thinking he's all holier than them as he does exactly the same thing."

  4. Lady Ballers Trailer

    in Current Events

    Posted

    1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

    That’s fine-it’s your life after all-but does it ever get depressing or just exhausting?

    It's called long-suffering and it's a virtue! :D

    1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

    Or is it like a habit-something you like doing? 

    Seriously...are you suggesting complacency and apathy for the sake of peace of mind would be better?

    Like...really? Is that what you're trying to imply. People who hope for godliness, cleanliness, righteousness, and peace on earth should just give up because it's depressing and exhausting and they can't ever win?

    1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

    to not spend my days complaining

    You're the one who's phrasing it as "complaining" and applying the cynical tone to what's being discusses. I don't consider it "complaining" to state that I wish Lady Ballers wasn't so crude. I admit it can be looked at that way. But I don't really think it's legitimate to call any criticism (from the right or the left) "complaining". I mean isn't your statement that the right are never satisfied and trying to make themselves feel noble really just you complaining about the right? Would that really be a fair way for me to look at it?

    Someone can't even state they have a preference one thing over another without it being considered complaining?

    I mean it's really just shutting down debate. Any time anyone says "I don't care for _________________" you're going to accuse them of just being whiney complainers and virtue signaling to look noble? Do you really think that's all Just A Guy was doing?

    But anyhow...

    I'm sorry...certain things DESERVE to be complained about. You may be desensitized to the poop they smear on the burgers you eat, but I think complaining about poop being smeared on my burger is fully justified.

    It really comes across like you're response is, "Everyone likes poop on their burgers. You complaining about it makes you look pathetic. We gave you a burger without cyanide in it like you asked? Is nothing good enough for you?! Now shut up and eat the poop burger!"

    No thanks. I don't want poop on my burger. And I'm gonna complain about it. ;)

  6. Lady Ballers Trailer

    in Current Events

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I’m probably just showing my age here, but . . . 
    While I agree with the political point that I’m sure the producers are making, the trailer seemed to have a lot of crudity and double-entendres that don’t really impress me in the media I consume.  

    I’m not sure that aiding and abetting—or even just accepting and reflecting—the general coarsening of society, is really helpful in the broader goal of protecting innocence and virtue.  

    It might be your (our) age, but.... the kind of comedy this is emulating has always been one that I despise. Crude juvenile humor has never appealed to me, personally, even when I was juvenile.

  7. Lady Ballers Trailer

    in Current Events

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    The filmmakers can’t win. 

    One of the things I dislike about the Daily Wire's approach (based on statements they've made) is that they don't see anything wrong with language, sex, violence, and the like. I think they'd love to make a Game of Thrones hit or the like. And they are completely oblivious to the fact that doing so is not going to help re-moralize or save the country's culture.

    Whereas I think making fun of what they're making fun of here is theoretically great, I agree whole-heartedly with @Just_A_Guy.

    Yes...it's extremely difficult to make good solid entertaining entertainment that doesn't include that sort of garbage. That doesn't mean it isn't doable. Heck, Disney did it for decades. It's hard, but it's doable.

    And, yes, I understand there are shades of grey and it's really hard to find that balance in entertainment. As it's often pointed out, a legitimate Book of Mormon or Bible movie would probably end up being R-rated.

    But crude humor about women with "the biggest ____ I've ever seen" is clearly not in that gray area of what sort of entertainment is morally uplifting and useful to bring people back from the grasp of Satan within which our culture is caught.

    24 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    @Just_A_Guy-this why the right always loses in the culture war.

    Yep. The "right" as you put it, will lose the culture war because they aren't the left. That is correct.

    I love that the Daily Wire is trying to win back the culture. But they will not succeed. You can't bring an evil culture back from being evil by giving them a different kind of evil.

  8. The Problem of Parental Love (Or,

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

    He is a well know liar though.

    But God is not. The plain scripture I mention is not the words of Satan. It is the words of God.

    "And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying...

    ...Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:1, 3)

    There can be no question that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. Unless one wants to argue that God was deceived by a lie.

  9. The Problem of Parental Love (Or,

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    42 minutes ago, mikbone said:

    Kinda no.

    Lucifer wanted glory without the effort.  He never was opposed to agency.  In fact, his example is to exercise selfish agency despite overwhelming evidence of its pitfalls and consequences.

    He used a contrived argument to confuse and provide an excuse for himself and his followers.

    A very Screwtape thing to do btw.

     

    Kinda depends on what you mean by "opposition to". There's no question that he was in opposition to our having our agency for our mortal probation. That's just scriptural fact as plain as written word can be.

  10. Ben Shapiro vs. Candace Owens

    in Current Events

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    Maybe. Or maybe it’s just a bitter “fact” that doesn’t care about your feelings. 😉 

    I know we're joking around a bit.... but.....

    This sort of response (if used seriously, as it sometimes is) is the kind of dismissiveness that's a real problem... not in that it's dismissive, but in that it's calling something a fact without proof or even evidence that it might be a fact.

    I'm not arguing here, btw, just using what you said as an example to my point.

    You said people who say "facts don't care about your feelings" think they're right 100% of the time. But you provide no evidence. Can there be evidence? How can you, or anyone, possibly know what people think? It's just your assumption based on what seems to be a bit of bias.

    Then you follow that by jokingly suggesting that what you said may be a fact. (I know you're being humorously snarky...but just go with it here for the point....).

    Fine, right. Maybe. Sure. Maybe.

    But it really strikes me that therein lies the potential problem. When we assume things without evidence are factual because of how we feel ----- well by golly that's half the point of the saying. We really ought to stop "feeling" what we think is factual and use actual evidence or statistics to inform our views instead of just our "sense of the matter" (how we feel about it).

    As to the specific comment at hand... take Ben Shapiro, for example (after all, he's the one famous for the saying in question). Does Ben Shapiro think he's right 100% of the time?

    Obviously it would be easy to assume he does. He speaks as if he's that confident. His mannerisms and attitudes imply it might be true. But....

    "First, let me point out that I’ve made mistakes and said dumb stuff. When this is pointed out, I’m more than happy to admit it, " - Ben Shapiro

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/so-heres-giant-list-all-dumb-stuff-ive-ever-done-ben-shapiro

    Of course this sort of thing is still only evidence. I wouldn't consider it "factual" that Ben Shapiro doesn't believe he's right 100% of the time. He may be providing nothing but lip service. It is, however, factual that he said he's made mistakes. And whether someone "feels" he's never admitted such...well he has. That's a fact. ;)

  12. Ben Shapiro vs. Candace Owens

    in Current Events

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    Sorry it came across that way, but I have. It’s a relatively useless saying that people  use to show off, score what they think are points, etc.

    Maybe it’s just who I hang out but I’ve never heard anyone say it offline in discussion with friends. It’s very dismissive. That could be it. 

    I agree that it is often dismissive. That doesn't make it wrong, meaningless, or useless.

    In point of fact, it's an extremely meaningful idea that actually matters a great deal. It's unfortunate that it is often used dismissively. (Though I'd argue that it's taken dismissively more than it's used that way.)

    It's also often misrepresented to be saying "feelings don't matter". But it doesn't actually mean or say that.

    I said it in a jokingly way, but the actual fact is that facts don't care about feelings. That's an obvious truth, but one that's denied by a lot of the world. Denying truth because of feelings is a serious problem in our society.

    I can understand that the saying itself has become a dismissive weapon. But to take the idea behind it, the actual meaning of the saying, and disregard it because of that isn't a good idea.

  13. Ben Shapiro vs. Candace Owens

    in Current Events

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    @EH12NGhas a point.

    Not really. Facts don't care about your feelings is a fact. ;)

    15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    But the “Facts don’t care about your feelings, snowflake”  crowd refuse to believe any of it because their feelings about what he does and his mission.

    You're making the case that facts don't care about feelings.

    18 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    It’s just a saying people use to show how they think they are smarter/tougher than anyone who dares to disagree with them.  It’s also said when people can’t handle debating, or in a crowd with people who agree with them and they want a cheap reaction.

    A true statement is true no matter how some people use it.

    20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    It’s a bit like a hack comedian saying “I love Detroit, I’m a Pistons fan!” to warm up the crowd and saying “Go Jazz! Utah rules!” The next night. 

    It strikes me that you have not considered the meaning of the saying with any level of seriousness.

  15. Peter Santello starts a series of videos on the Mormons

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    43 minutes ago, Grunt said:

    Then I have zero idea what you're all wound up about.

    Well I'm not sure how I can be more clear than I've been. So I guess we'll leave it at that.

    As for my being "wound up" and "snarky": As is common, I'm really significantly less emotional than I'm probably coming across. So I apologize for that. And I apologize for my other phrasing that was insensitive as well. I'm not that wound up, more just mildly huffed. But I'm clearly "in a mood". So I apologize for that and will try and do better.

     

  16. Peter Santello starts a series of videos on the Mormons

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    22 minutes ago, Grunt said:

    but I don't hold myself responsible for hurt feelings when asserting we should follow the examples and counsel of our priesthood leaders.

    Of course asserting we should follow the examples and counsel of our priesthood leaders isn't a bad thing. Are you really oblivious to the fact that correlating it to certain innocuous behavior is likely to offend?

    That's the wide-eyed faux innocence's I'm talking about.

    I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting that if they drink soda they're not following the prophet.

    I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting if they don't homeschool their children their not true Christians.

    I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by implying that any true followers of Christ will be clean shaven.

    OBVIOUSLY we should follow the prophet. That's not the concept that offends. And assuming or pretending like it is is a deflection.

    If someone is asked to shave by a priesthood leader then clearly they should shave. I'm am clean shaven currently. Why? Because I'm a temple worker and they asked me to shave. I have no issues with doing as we are asked to do. I have an issue with the idea that allowing others to believe that we HAVE been asked to do things that we have NOT been asked to do is a good idea.

    30 minutes ago, Grunt said:

    I went further by asserting I thought it foolish that someone would give up coffee, alcohol, and finances to follow Christ but facial hair would be where they drew the line.

    The problem is the reverse. There are those who may never get around to the challenge of giving up coffee or alcohol because they won't investigate the church because they NEEDLESSLY believe that "Mormons" look down on anyone with facial hair and can't drink Coca-Cola. It's the needless part I take issue with.

    And I don't think we should be driving potential investigators away needlessly. We have litmus tests to pass. Let them be the tests they're meant to be and not otherwise shut doors that should be open.

    And, frankly, I find the attitude that we can just write off anyone who doesn't take a look at the church because they believe things like we have to be clean shaven seriously problematic. 

    I don't have any issue with someone coming to the conclusion that they need to be clean shaven to follow the prophet. I do have an issue with preaching to others that if they don't shave they aren't following the prophet, and even more so preaching to non-members that all faithful Latter-day Saints abstain from soda and shave.

     

  17. Peter Santello starts a series of videos on the Mormons

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Grunt said:

    I'm not trying to be antagonistic at all.  I've been told by priesthood leaders, directly, that certain callings are expected to be clean shaven.   Do I have to follow my priesthood leaders?  Of course not.  Should I follow the guidance of people called by God to lead His church?   Of course I do.   

    People get so caught up in what they don't HAVE to do they neglect to think "hmmmm, should I follow the example of the Prophet?"

    When you suggest that all the good and faithful brethren in the church, my father-in-law, my neighbors, my friends, and oft times me, are not following the prophet because we have facial hair, and are essentially the same as those who are drinking alcohol and coffee, and then virtue blink in feigned wide-eyed innocence like it's not meant to be offensive or antagonistic...sorry....it doesn't play.

    It's rude and it's wrong.

  20. Peter Santello starts a series of videos on the Mormons

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    The implication that "Mormons" don't wear beards wasn't very accurate. Brock didn't seem to catch that he was thinking that meant for all Latter-day Saints rather than just BYU and/or leadership like roles. Things like that can be problematic. Thinking that if you join the church you can't wear a beard anymore is going to drive some away.

    A minor complaint though.

  24. Survey about censorship on social media

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by The Folk Prophet

    8 hours ago, Traveler said:

    I think myself responsible and I have been censored a number of times on this forum

    Interesting. I didn't consider this forum when I stated I'd never been "censored". I was only thinking Facebook, Youtube, etc. I have actually had a post or two edited or removed in the past here, now that I think of it.

    Dang it @pam!!!

    8 hours ago, Traveler said:

    Since @The Folk Prophet  is both an expert and more current, his insights are closer to reality than mine.

    You think that because I help program a client and inventory management system for someone that I'm worthy of an expert opinion status on internet censorship?

    Thanks!! I'll take it!