Crypto

German has the highest return value on average in pay increases for knowing it. Spanish has one of the lowest. I don't recommend Rosetta stone. I personally like BYKI for vocabulary (Or anki which is free), and the Pimsleur Method for learning how to speak quickly. If you like audio disc's, Pimsleur will cover the basics but after that you will have to find something to explain the actual grammar and such. (speak with real people etc..)

Yes, posts and likes. And on occasion I would be redirected to a cloudflare error page.

I can agree with the sentiment that we should avoid getting vicious when there are disagreements.

You are correct. I'm playing devils advocate a bit here. This is a break down of Gender ratio's across the world. Pink=Girl Blue=Boy Green=Equal. This applies to modern time not historically. Average birth rates favor males slightly, however women tend to survive better. The blue countries don't surprise me too much. (I'm not going to continue down this path, since the thread seems to have moved on)

Complete speculation on my part but... It would be important for children to be born into a supportive and righteous family. Polygamy might be able to accomplish that. Not about the number of seed but about a righteous seed. Also it would tie the community together closer because of close familial relations. Statistically females survive to reproductive age more often than men, even if such an explanation isn't suitable to completely explain it away, there is some validity. Women don't have to be more righteous for the numbers game to work, simply more women than men on total. (in the preexistence)

You asked for healthy yet the first thing that came to mind was Mac n Cheese, chili dogs, Frito boats, Pizza, Top Ramen

hmm no real change this is what i've found: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/activities?lang=eng#13.6.8 Fund-raising activities are not usually approved because expenses for stake and ward activities are paid with budget funds. As an exception, a stake president or bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity each year. Such an activity may be held to raise funds for the following purposes only: 1. To help pay the cost of one annual camp or similar activity as outlined in 13.2.8. 2. To help purchase equipment that the unit needs for annual camps as outlined in 13.2.9. It can also be found here: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/english/young-men/35814_scout-handbook_eng.pdf?lang=eng Hmm I wonder where I heard this misinformation from....

umm, because it was part of LDS theology? It is something I was taught from and youth up until adult Sunday school. If you would like a short answer Abraham had multiple wives (Abraham was righteous), even if more modern western society frowns upon it, it's not something that is necessarily sinful. (Though I would like to add that there is sinful ways to practice polygamy just like there is sinful ways to practice marriage.) *note this is the short version

hmm I recollect something about policies on fund raising for lds scout troop being changed. It may be allowed now, i'd have to double check.

I generally don't like getting the last word in online discussions...it means you've killed the thread! (sometimes)

Mordorbund likes getting compliments and has an awesome profile picture (Does that work ) [edit] Maybe I should have said mordorbund likes people to talk about mordorbund :)

I think this also has something to do with the personality of different people. To some people debate is debate, and not personal. To some debate is conflict. To some debate is boring. etc... When you have all sorts of people coming together online it is really easy to misunderstand where a person is coming from and how they feel about things, it makes communication really hard. [edit] I've notice for example that Eowyn doesn't like disagreement but shows great compassion, while Anatess will run right into the roil and not be phased. Vort tends to pick apart ideas and present them from another angle. The Folk Prophet is very willing to state bluntly what he thinks is right. Margin of Error is a bit unconventional, (he's? not been quite so active on the forums since i've been here, so idk him? very well). A small sample of people, but I think that the coming together of all of these people and perspectives is a beautiful thing. Pam is the almighty admin. And Palerider takes bribes ;P and i tend to be more interested in the debate-ish threads....shame on me

I think this is exactly what happened. There are some really good points on both sides, it is sad that the conversation devolved. (and since it happens so often sometimes it's best to keep it at arms length)

Implicit in the Jeffery R. Holland quote is the same underlying idea as the Dalin H. Oaks quote. One advocating against an absence of goodwill, and another advocating for goodwill. It seems to be that this is the moral high ground. Some times it's not what is said, but how it is said that causes a problem.

You mentioned nothing of divorce, but it is generally my assumption that it is a strong possibility. I would recommend getting legal advice in preparedness for the potential future. I'm sorry you are experiencing this. It would be shameful for others to treat you like you are just seeking for attention in such a situation. I think most bishops would be compassionate.

I had a discussion with a friend recently and one of the ideas that came up is that morality could potentially be defined as any act that is for the growth, betterment, and reproduction of the human race. Surprisingly, using this set of logic you can come to many of the morals that Christians believe in. We also decided that it leaves the door wide open to rationalization on choices and can go the completely opposite way.

There are potential legal consequences of letting local charters choose their own membership policies. The worry is that local units will begin to get sued, and without the funding and support of national it could be quite detrimental to BSA as a whole. It would also be difficult for national to support local charter organizations on an individual basis if these lawsuits become common. Ironically the same people pushing for a change in essence are the same as who are preventing it.

This seems to be a variation of the golden rule, in that what we are (how we act unto others) is what we want of heaven.(others to act unto us) Even if we fail to always act as how we would like heaven to be. There is still the flaw of Which could and can be solved by communities that are in disagreement separating.

I agree such a question becomes meaningless if there isn't some form of morality. It becomes difficult to argue that there is an objective morality rather than a subjective one, especially with how views change over time. Whether objective or not seeing through the glass darkly is a subjective exercise, and hopefully like you state we are moving towards a better, or objective moral truth. (with all of the accompanying ups and downs) What I take from your statement "we need to push for our society to embrace the moral truth as best we know it while continuing to refine our beliefs." Is that you are in favor of a form of majority rule, generally, though certain cultures and people are exceptions. There are flaws with a non-aggression principal in defining exactly what constitutes aggression and harm. However it would also avoid the flaws in a majority system where people seem apt to harm others. There are also circumstances which I personally view as immoral that a non-aggression principal wouldn't cover.

So what you are saying is that you support a system of majority rule. There is a slight alteration in the american implementation of this idea in that there are some protections for minority populations, and controls placed on majority rule(legislative branch). It seems to work reasonably well, about as reasonably well as rule under a righteous authority, and not quite as bad as rule under an unrighteous authority generally. This seems to be the major down fall of such a system, with an population that respects less and less of the controls placed on the system, the system works less and less as intended. Except majority rule allows for the majority to choose a system that is different than the one they are currently under. Here is a question then, is it moral to act against such a system if a majority is against your position? A rhetorical question, but here is the point; if civil disobedience can be right what purpose is there of law, and what is acceptable disobedience and what is not? Would this also be determined by majority rule, or the currently utilized democratic system? What about when the majority acts against a stronger sounder argument for what is right and what is not? Should your personal morals be set by this? Of course not. It is interesting to note that majority rule is simply a form of authoritarianism where the majority becomes the authority.

There is a difference between debate and contention. However when people debate topics they feel strongly about they tend to do so with emotion, which is responded to in kind. Disgust begets disgust, hate begets hate, love begets love. The other thing is that a large amount of people can't listen to disagreement without taking it personally. It's best to step out and cool down if we find that happening.

What should public policy on morality be based on? Since we live in a world where opinions abound, I was wondering what various people think would makean agreeable standard for determining what values of morality communities and law should define. How shouldor would such a thing be defined. I have a few thoughts, and their potential flaws. Authoritarianism: The standard is set by some authority (such as the bible, king, or law). The flaw is that there has to be an agreed upon authority, otherwise it won't work (unless you live in a dictatorship), and just because an authority sets a code of morality doesn't mean it will be right or good. Unless the authority is set, what is moral will continue to shift. Utilitarianism/Prioritarianism: A logical way to determine things based on maximum utility. However, this leaves to question what the best things are for utility. Sometimes the choices based on utilitarianism can lead to decisions that generally would not be seen as humane. Hedonism: Pleasure is good and should be maximized and sought after. This seems to be what society is trending towards. Current and past stands on morality can't all be encompassed by this. It doesn't take into account productivity of a society. It would not resemble current morals society seem to have roughly agreed upon. Non-Aggression principal: So long as it doesn't hurt others people are free to do as they choose. This doesn't account for a general belief in stopping people from destroying their lives via drugs, sex, suicide etc... Golden Standard: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Even if all people did this, there would still be hurt feelings as not all people are sensitive to all of the same things. Majority rule: The majority of the community decide. The flaw is that minority opinions get silenced. I think most people apply a mix of these ideas, however when there is conflict between these ideas how would you resolve which one to follow, or how to act. Also I think to an extent many LDS moral beliefs are Authoritarian in nature, due to the fact that we follow what we believe God to have professed is good and right. Typically from what i've seen through history is that there are 2 major ways that are usually used to resolve issues on morality, culture, and differences in society. War, and Diaspora. There can and will be compromise on occasion. Generally though like minded people gather into new communities. The problem with this is that pretty much all land is regulated by various governments, there isn't many places new social groups can move to, other than concentrating within a pre-existing nation. I thought it was an interesting thought in that people have to work more to find compromise rather than moving away. Are morals an absolute truth that can be seen or derived, or relative, or arbitrary? What people belief can have a huge impact on how they approach these subjects. Any other ideas, or things that I have missed? I'm somewhat partial to the non-agression principal, yet with utilitarian exceptions.

I don't think it has much to do with one being morally good and the other not. It has to do with protecting an environment (within reason) so that people can choose between what is morally good and not. (or what they thing is morally good at least)

If you view it on youtube, you might get a countdown. Skip ahead to see the video.

Tell him you would like to speak with him.