Crypto

hmm, I seem to count fractions of a day as a day...unless it confuses people and I have to clarify, tell them something along the lines "Well I left at lunch time" Interesting stuff.

Sooo just out of curiosity....Is this what they will be teaching?

This is not validated by the data, it is not an assumption. I'm also curious of what definition of pedophile you are using, because there is a stark difference between the legal definitions, cultural definitions, and psychiatric definition. There is also a BIG difference between what can cause people to be on a sex offender list, and being a pedophile. [i would like to note that what i'm trying to say is that you can't equate sex offender with pedophile] I'm not addressing anyone in particular to some of my thoughts below, it's just a few thoughts. I have a friend that is a registered sex offender, long story short he had a girlfriend who was slightly under age, he was slightly over age and the family didn't approve of the relationship. He got taken to court and lost. al la now criminal. This guy is not a sex offender more than anyone else who enters a relationship disapproved of by a family. If it wasn't for the family, i'm pretty sure they would have been married by now There are definitely circumstances that warrant discrimination to protect safety, and in bini's case it might be the right call (she knows the circumstances). Studies also indicate isolation, or marginalizing of at risk crime groups (across the board) also prevent reintegration into society and contribute to individuals recommitting crimes. Acting in the name of 'safety' could very well cause more harm, The important point to consider is if it actually is about safety. Oh, you might want to be careful about dealing with this issue, because in some states you could actually be breaking the law by doing this. (in regards to the ban) The pitch forks, torches, and tar approach does not serve justice. (Which hopefully has already been served by the court)

I think in depth discussion of such issues should be left to college level courses, where hopefully childhood gender identity developmental phases have been passed through, and where hopefully a rigorous scientific methodology can be used to describe the varying degrees of sexual normative behavior, disorders, and other such psychological topics. My experience is that elementary school would be unable to provide this, and that most high schools might be qualified enough to include a page or so in a general health class bringing basic awareness. I would hope if a school decides to teach about such topics they are willing to pull it into a unifying context of all human sexuality, which seems strongly in the realm of college courses.

This is cool. I like hearing about interesting things like this.

I'm curious as to the last quote. What does this mean? Does it mean that western members are leaving the faith? Does it mean that other populations are immigrating? Are members simply dying faster? Does it mean other groups are having more babies? Does it simply mean the growth rate of converts and births in the area is less than the population growth? Some combination?

I think it's still gossip, it's just easier to spread your gossip to a wider audience....regardless of truth or falsehood. As for how society treats men, lets just say don't be a man sitting in a park if there is a playground, even if there are no children around. Cops can and will be called for some reason.

I have a feeling that a certain psychologist might get categorized as "meddling, prudish religious tyrant" showing the unpopular side of science.

I've heard from multiple women how they have been / are [implies will be] attracted to multiple men at once. It goes both ways. Even if men don't say so, such thoughts worry them as well.

I think it has been used before in prior conferences when the choir starts and then the congregation joins in later.

Doesn't make any difference to me xD I must be a bad person

I can see a further need and rise of voluntary service in such a stark future. Now here's the question, can individuals be taxed for directly providing for the church where money, and materials are never handled by the church itself, but directly given by individuals to other individuals for the benefit of Zion? This wouldn't work for all things, such as property, but i'm curious.

Exactly!

It's not proof by contradiction, if A=/=A is not seen as an contradiction but instead as an axiom of the value of a number. It's a change in the rules.

I'm not a mathematician, so I only have a basic understanding of axioms, but if the axioms on which math are based were changed, Logical rules on which the math function would not apply. For example, if a number is not equal to itself A=/=A, then a proof could in theory no longer be accepted. Though someone arguing as such, is probably on weak ground to begin with.

Change the basic axioms and any proof can be invalidated.

hush you. lol

My guess would be that "It" refers to the verse before which states that "for emptiness will be their recompense" so "It [their recompense] will be paid in full before their time" At least that's how I understand it at least.

It took me awhile to understand what you were trying to communicate since it's not something i've heard before. It's an interesting thought

Technically it is lying. Is it still technically lying if you never read that particular line? Regardless of reading, the terms take place. Privacy policies and terms of use are simply for legal protections I suppose, and if one is in disagreement with it, it's their opportunity to decide against participating.

Can I start saying to people I'm not political? ;P

This can't be compared, it's a false analogy, two separate issues. Allowing a person to live or work doesn't require an individual to go to a service that might be in conflict with a moral sentiment (Present, or participating). I don't have an answer to what I brought up, but i'm willing to ask the question.

Present or participate? Is this like aiding and abetting?

Anyone else notice that Guest_teamfamilywall_* now has the look of an account that has been removed? Replying to the original poster might no longer yield responses, I think.

The discussions I see here have been some of the least contentious, most informative discussions on various issues with strongly opposing view points i've encountered anywhere. Even with the occasional offense taken, feelings hurt, or strong disagreement. It's awesome!