• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. Irony? Not quite the word I would use. Perhaps: Self-defeating behavior. Self-defeating prophecy? For much of European History Jews were hated and discriminated against. One characteristic was that (for quite a long history) they were not allowed to own land. Therefore, they could not grow their own food. This forced them to make money through business in order to buy food. Being in finance and business required brains. Those who survived while maintaining their Jewish identity had to be among the smarter people. To be highly successful, you had to be really smart. But the average European had to go into farming. Through the centuries, Jews became smarter. The native Europeans became dumber. Unintentional consequences: Natural selection by human edict. Then they also developed the most amazing education system that you can imagine. And it leans heavily towards verbal reasoning, logic, reading, and memorization. Aside: Freedom Toons has a video of "dinner at the Shapiro house." It depicts the extended family making fun of Ben Shapiro for being the intellectual runt of the family. His response is, "I realize all of you are more accomplished and all. But in other circles an IQ of 215 is generally considered pretty respectable. OK?"
  2. I guess you're right. I was just taking an aside to address the old adage: "No one ever said at the end of their lives that they wish they'd spent more time at the office." I'm just not sure that is true. Being at the office means that you're providing for your family. And if you do that well enough at the standard 40 hrs/wk, then great. If you need to do overtime to make the mortgage payment, then that's what a man ought to do. Losing the house because you wanted to make every function your kids go to is not a balance of priorities. (But... I'm speaking as the father/husband. I agree that there are different priorities for the wife/mother). I'm not so sure of that. That is not what I'm hearing from General Conference. The post Sis. Johnson made on a Facebook page is not "what the Church teaches." Pres Oaks responded that he was happy to hear that she prioritized her role as a mother. That was not a statement that "it is perfectly ok to be a career woman and a mother at the same time." It was praise for a particular behavior which she seemed to espouse. It's called being diplomatic while correcting her at the same time. In the screenshot provided, I didn't read a single word from Pres Oaks praising her for being a career woman.
  3. I've thought about this and I'm leaning toward the idea that it is not about right v wrong, or correct v incorrect. Neither is it about obeying or disobeying. It is really about "are you able to do this?" For most women, the answer is "No, you will definitely neglect your family." For others, the answer is,"yes, but you're really just making your life harder. And you'll eventually have to choose between your career or your family. Are you sure you're going to be willing to give up your career when that eventuality occurs?" For a very few, the answer is "yes... but... be sure you continue to make family the priority in your life. Don't lose sight of what is most precious." The reason why this last is so uncommon is the reason women go to work v. why men go to work. Women go to work to gain status or to feel "fulfilled." Unless they have to, they don't go to work to support the family. Thus single mothers are part of the "have to go to work" group. They do it because they need to support the family. Men go to work first and foremost because we need to support our family. It has been the husbandly and fatherly role since pre-historic times. It always will be so. Take that away from the man and he feels emasculated. If we can't support our family, it destroys us spiritually, mentally, and emotionally. Do we want fulfillment and status? Absolutely. Of course we do. But it is not the primary purpose of a man's profession. And it is much less common for a man to lose sight of this. Ask 100 men who make the median salary: Would you clean sewers for $100k/yr? 99 of them would say "Yes, absolutely!" Ask 100 women the same question. 1 of them might accept. So, unless you're the one woman who would accept, chances are that your claim that you "need" to work outside the home is a false one. To bring it back to the beginning... Sis Johnson didn't seem to need to go to work to support the family. But she seemed to be the 1/1000 who can do it all and continue to make family the priority in her life. The danger here is so many women who cannot do so will look at her example and think, "Why can't I do that?" Answer: Because you're only in it for yourself and you're not willing to sacrifice what you need to do in order to make family a priority. CONDITION: It is a LOT easier for a career woman to make family a priority if she works part-time or has a home-based business. And lawyering is one of those professions where you can do that (depending on the type of law she practices). So, if you have a profession that allows you to be with your children, then great. Just be sure to make them the priority, not your career.
  4. I realize that people want to encourage people to behave better by having cameras watching their every move. There is wisdom in this. But I see an unexpected consequence. Children even early teens still don't have any idea about life. They're in the learning stages. And while there need to be consequences for actions, I believe that the mob mentality that is rampant in this era (and, I'm sure many other periods in history) would want their pound of flesh if some stupid kid simply did something that was simply stupid. And that kid would pay for the rest of his life for doing something stupid that stupid kids do, but often grow out of.
  5. That is certainly food for thought. I believe what this evokes is: "If there are exceptions to the rule, why can't I be the exception because I think I can be?" And many of the posts here expressing concern are basically asking the same thing. That's a good question. How do we know?
  6. I think I disagree, or at least, I find it incomplete. While I definitely treasure the experiences bonding with my kids, I will also certainly look back on my career and think favorably of the highlights and lowlights, as well as the anecdotes from work. This does not in any way diminish my experiences bonding with my children. Just this past weekend, my younger daughter and I went to run a lot of errands. The little things we did and said will be a cherished memory. We bonded during that entire day. And we will always remember that day. While I find my work life fulfilling, I treasure my time with my kids. A few months ago, my daughter said something that I'm having trouble processing. When she found out what my salary was, she told me,"I didn't know how amazing a father you are." I thanked her. But I didn't know what brought this on. She had never made such an expression of praise to me before. When she explained what she was talking about, it was mostly about providing for the family. But she also realized it was because I work a LOT of overtime. It was surprising to me because none of my kids are materialistic. And my girls certainly aren't gold-diggers or spoiled. I rarely get them any special gifts other than the traditional times (birthday, Christmas, etc.). And she has never asked for special gifts. She works very hard to get the money she does. But she was very willing to forgive my lack of time with the family when she found out what my salary was. I found that to be very interesting.
  7. I'm not sure if that is a bad thing. We have to remember that we have an advantage today that makes it more feasible to make parenting a priority while still being able to do something professionally. Bandwidth. My wife, for example, is perfectly capable of setting up things for the kids to do regarding our homeschool curriculum., then finish up some household chores, and then do work online or make a few phone calls or send some emails and text for work. I don't see a problem with this. If she still makes herself available for the kids and she is able to do other work as a profession, why is that a bad thing? And for so many who don't see public school as the menace that it is, they could work in an office part-time and still not neglect the kids. Why is this a bad thing? That said, I don't think it is optimal in 90% of the cases. But it can be done in most cases while still maintaining at least a minimally acceptable level of nurturing of the children.
  8. I would modify NT's response a bit. There were MANY covenants made during OT times. Abraham's was one such covenant. Those promises made to Abraham regarding his posterity still bless the lives of his descendants. And we consider ourselves among them (either by birth or by adoption). Other covenants were made to the Israelites during the time of the Law of Moses. And those who follow that law do inherit some of the blessings from that covenant. After the Resurrection, another covenant was introduced. And all people have access to that covenant, not just Jews. But the idea that Christians replaced the Jews is a mistaken notion. Jews were the first Christians. And today, Jews are just as welcome to convert to Christianity as anyone on earth.
  9. AMEN, brother. My son only took a couple of classes at the local JC to explore what various professions were about. Eventually he got some online training for $35 to become a drafter. He did have the advantage of having access to the software through me. But anyone else could have rented it for about $50/month. He began his career before he even turned 20 years old. He was making the average salary when he still lived under our roof. When he left for his mission it was a disappointment for many at the company he worked for. He was the best drafter they had. Throughout his mission, people at the company kept calling me asking when he was coming back. The date didn't change. But they kept calling anyway. They wanted to know if there was any way he could come home earlier. LOL! Now he's back at that company with a hefty raise. He has now moved from average salary to median salary. That said, I need to admit that my son is a special case. His brain is phenomenal. I've never met anyone like him before. And I know a LOT of very smart people. It is possible that a particular friend of mine has a son with a mind like my son's. My wife always had a dream of being a wildlife biologist. But she knew from her youth that being a mother was paramount. So, she slowly took classes whenever we could afford it. She eventually got an associate's degree (made Phi Beta Kappa) the same year that her daughter got hers. And now in her middle age, she doesn't regret the choices she's made. Our kids are just the best. I could tell some stories. But I'd be bragging too much. It is because they had a SAHM who was teaching and guiding them all the way. They also had a father who taught them the roles of men and women. All my children love to read (because of their mother). They love having philosophical and Socratic discussions all the time. And they have the wackiest sense of humor in any household I know of.
  10. While on the whole, I'm on your side on the issue, I believe both of the bolded words to be an unfair and inaccurate interpretation of my post. My point is that a system works because all or most of the parts are available and functioning in some capacity. Society has removed so many of the parts that the traditional family has come depended on, that we need to make other contingency plans than we have in past generations. For one thing, past generations actually discouraged women from even seeking higher education. My father actually balked at the idea that my wife wanted to get a degree (which my labor would pay for). And, yes, he was fairly typical of his generation. Now, your point about Sis. Johnson's statement: Yes, I am disturbed by it. On its face, it appears to say,"Hey sisters! You really CAN have it all! -- with or without men." But she didn't say that. She said that they, as a couple, sought the Lord's guidance in prayer and faith. And as far as we know, she was perfectly willing to follow the Lord's counsel if she were told to quit school and become a SAHM. That was not discussed in the snippet shown above. What was shown above was that It sounded like she prayerfully made a joint decision between her, her husband, and the Lord. Then Pres. Oaks' response was not about being a lawyer or getting her education. What about that is any different from the messaging we received in generations past? I also acknowledged that this does have a dangerous side to it. People (read: career women) could EASILY take this to mean that women can go and become career women and ignore the family without any spiritual, emotional, mental, or social repercussions for her or her family. Unfortunately MANY women (and men) will take it that way. And they'd all be wrong. Compare Sis Johnson's word to my wife's grandmother who said, "If I had it to do over again, I never would have had kids." And this wasn't because her kids were maladjusted. They were all fine human beings. And none of them became inactive or lost their testimony. But in her old age she decided that she could have had a much more successful career than she did have if only she didn't have to worry about those kids taking up all her time.
  11. I find that unlikely to be a result of the current messaging.
  12. Yes, the message is shifting. Yes. the needle has moved. But I believe it is doing so to correct and adapt to many variables that we see in today's society. That said, I believe there is also danger. It is fine to always focus on the ideal. And if we had never changed the message, I don't know if it would have been detrimental or not. The issue at hand is that even active Latter-day Saints are becoming subject to the divorce statistic. And we're becoming more aware of the abuse statistic. We are also aware of the difficulties of the widow and orphan. And if the father becomes disabled, that is another thing to consider. I get the impression that the traditional household does not really allow for these (for lack of a better word) emergency conditions. I just heard a radio call about a woman who needed help running her household because the couple had specialized their duties so much that she simply didn't know how to do some very simple things that were always her husbands responsibilities. And it would have been much the same had she been the one to pass away first. We have been so focused on living and depending on the traditional families, that we didn't realize that society has changed to the point where there was no longer a support system for families who are subject to death or disability. Because people think that government takes care of that, ended up changing the fabric of society. That mentality destroyed social safety nets that have been in place since Biblical times. But the government doesn't do it even half as well as ancient patterns. It never has, and it never will. We used to have societal systems in place for that. But that has broken down to the point where it no longer fits the needs of todays society. So, we can't depend on the old system. We can't depend on the new system. We can't really do anything other than the counsel that the GAs have given. The danger is that people are taking this message the wrong way. They think it is validation for "the working woman" (as portrayed in feminist circles) as if it were the ideal for a woman. No it is not. And it never will be. The feminist woman will always consider her professional and public persona as primary and home/family a secondary. There is no more important work that anyone can do than within the walls of their own home. This overall principle will never change. And whatever the GAs say about the roles of men and women, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, the home will always be supremely important.
  13. I remember that (I believe it was) Pres Hinckley gave counsel for young women to get an education and/or other means of obtaining work for themselves. But that was not about avoiding the role of SAHM. It was "just in case" of husband's death, divorce, etc.
  14. So, the Antisemitism Bill (HR 6090) that just passed "apparently" has verbiage that makes belief in the New Testament illegal. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 on X: "Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews. Read the bill text and…" / X ( It's not just her, but 70 D and 21 R (total) voted against it. But those who passed it (both R and D) are crying out how ridiculous it is that anyone would interpret the bill that way. There's nothing to worry about. Uh-huh. Text - H.R.6090 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 | | Library of Congress The texts gives two statements about what constitutes Anti-Semitism. 1. Definition The definition seems sufficiently vague as to give you the gist of what Anti-Semitism is. And I think that most people would understand that. But the broad definition is also one that is easily left up to interpretation. This is the same problem as other "hate speech laws." 2. Contemporary Examples A big problem is that such verbiage is not included in the bill itself. It incorporates them by reference only. This means that many won't actually look at the definition and examples. They just want to pass the bill anyway... because no one wants to be seen as anti-semitic.
  15. I'm sure that's always an issue. But.. The sources I looked at were not about political issues making it cost prohibitive. They indicated that the energy in vs energy out ratio is just not favorable. In order to build a plant big enough to make that margin work in a commercial market, the plant construction costs would be so huge that no one could build it.
  16. Thoughts on fatherhood: Near the end, she ties it into how this effects the social, economic, and emotional well-being of the children when they hit adulthood.
  17. I understand that you are a fan. I have been as well. But as I have been continually reading more about it, the things I hear by people (who at least appear to be relatively neutral on the topic) say that it is not economically feasible. We've tried it at a small scale, and it doesn't produce a sufficient net positive to pay for the energy that it outputs. The argument has been made that molted salt reactors are only economical at a large scale. But the government has not approved a large scale plant, so we can't really tell. Some people have put together calculations which show that the economy of scale isn't enough to become economically feasible until we have a plant so large that simply building it would be prohibitive. At this point, these are all guesses, models, and calculations. So, who really knows? Maybe someone will come up with a different model that shows us the exact opposite. But I'm becoming less and less excited about it as I read more about it. My in-laws got a solar array a while back. Their storage system (I believe) was an iron-air batteries. This has the advantage of "never" degrading (notice the scare quotes). People gripe because is it much less efficient per cubic ft. But because iron is so much more abundant than rare earth metals that it is very cheap. So, we can make more batteries to make up for that deficiency and still come out dollars ahead. And if it never degrades, then we don't have to worry about future replacement costs.
  18. I agree. Language does evolve. But the meaning of perfect to mean "thorough or complete" is still found in dictionaries today (c.f. definition #6). No one bothers to look. No one seems to care. I guess it is too much to ask of someone who is not as much of a logophile as I am. But it would make longer explanations less frequently required.
  19. I'm kind of saddened by the fact that the "eventually" was even required. The American vocabulary is disappointing. The origin of the word "perfect" meant "completed" or literally per = complete fect = do/done So, since we aren't done with this life, and we are not at our final destination, of course we're not completed; of course we're not done. But our hope is to eventually get there.
  20. In some cases, I agree. And, yes, there are some people who still hold intersectional prejudices that they shouldn't (that's on both the left and the right). But I don't believe that is societal/systemic. I believe that some people/families have more challenges than others regardless of their intersectionality. And some people (just by luck of the draw) happen to come across more prejudiced individuals than others. Sorry. But that's your cross to bear. Move to a better area. I found some really inspiring stories of black, single moms who lived in downtown Houston who realized that there was more to life than living in a ghetto. So, they searched for months until they found a job in Katy. And she moved there with her kids. Now they have a wonderful, peaceful life away from crime. A black single mom did this on her own. Many such stories. Not really. If you look at first generation Cis-Asian-American men, they often have it really rough. But all people hear about are the success stories -- and there are many of them. And there is a whole long story behind that which most Americans are not aware of. If you're interested, I'll be happy to share that later. But to continue on this thread... I'm glad that you make this admission. But the fact is that I did have an advantage that made things easier for me. And it wasn't identity or money. It is simple DNA. I was born with certain talents and abilities that were clearly present when I was in kindergarten. And they would have shown up in virtually any kindergarten class in America regardless of what identity characteristics my parents had. Some people simply have abilities that others don't. And if we seek equality of outcome, regardless of individual talent, then we're messing up the entire system. We are discouraging people from using their natural talents to the best advantage. And we're encouraging people to demand jobs that they are not qualified for. I admit that there are some of these barriers that you allude to. But in my experience, knowing the stories and backgrounds of MANY people who are black, Hispanic, Native American, etc. (and certainly Asians) who have been treated very badly and had what seem to be insurmountable obstacles. But they made it through. They became successful. Shouldn't? I'm not so certain. It depends on what that barrier is. I'm sure that we both agree that race and sexual orientation shouldn't be barriers. But what if "sexual orientation" now becomes a culture? What if that means that a gay man decides that to be the "real me" he needs to dress like Liberace all the time? Is that appropriate for the workplace? No, we need less distraction, not more. Good. I believe the numbers disagree with you. But regardless, this isn't meant to be. And it shouldn't. The very fact that it is generational means that there are earlier generations who will begin at the bottom. Then they will work their way on up by industry and ingenuity. As you can guess, I'm more of a meritocracy type of person when it comes to professional life and wealth distribution. Not that you should get more simply because of talent alone. You need to actually USE that talent for the benefit of others. The more benefit you give, the more money you should receive. So, meritocracy also includes hard work and effort. But hard work alone with no talent doesn't get you much either. I really have difficulty understanding why people have a problem with that. Actually, that was debunked. Not that it never happened. But it was much more often out of practical and sound financial issues. But I'll just leave it there for now. I haven't looked into that with enough detail to respond at present. I'm aware of the difficulties. I've spent a part of my professional life in city planning. And it is a lot more difficult than you'd think. I'm not sure why this is relevant. My experience has been that after a certain density, it is impossible to have a system that actually works well and satisfies all the goals of infrastructure. Tell me about it. I commute over an hour to and from work when I go in before, and return after, rush hour. I think what you're getting at is that the world is so crowded that we can't get enough people into an acre of land? If so, that isn't because it is impossible. It is because there isn't a societal impetus/priority for it. We have other priorities. If every individual (not household, but individual) had an acre of land, that would take up about 2% of the land mass of the 48 states and about 100% of the arable land of the US. But that would be increased by individuals with land that they can irrigate. There is plenty of land. But people want so many amenities that they can only find them all if you live close to a city. It's a question of proper priorities. I'm not sure that you've really made a case for what those barriers really are. That truly is wonderful. The very fact that there are pathways out (for even the most destitute of individuals) tells me that the barriers you mention aren't all that difficult to overcome. Just because one roadway is blocked off, doesn't mean we can't use the next roadway that is wide-open. Yes, there is. Charities and individuals will always do this type of thing more efficiently and more successfully than government. That is something that we are going to disagree on. For me, people and communities (like churches and charities) are the solution to these problems, not the government. Totally agree. I believe that we disagree on what that "little boost" should consist of. Totally agree.
  21. That didn't prevent Joe Biden from being elected.
  22. That is much more true than any woke leftist's conclusion on the matter. People simply don't recognize the importance of the family unit. But they will certainly shed tears when someone shares a sob story about their broken home. So, what is any leftist doing to preserve the family as the basic and most important unit of society? <crickets>. Statistics are so clear it is frightening. If you honor the traditional family, you have a greater than 90% chance of being in the middle class or higher when you grow up. Breaking the nuclear family... that's a different story.
  23. Now you're arguing semantics. I'll point out that I have never heard of a woke individual saying that any other race has "privilege." Soon, I'm certain, people will be touting "Asian privilege." Perhaps they already have and I just haven't heard it. Whether you believe it or not by whatever definition you choose, the problem I have with it is the unspoken assumption that they didn't deserve that. They never worked for it. 1. How do you know? This is especially relevant when there are first generation individual who definitely did work hard for it and achieved it themselves through honest means. 2. So, if parents or grandparents... set things up to grow wealth generationally, then why aren't other people doing the same thing? What's stopping you? I remember in the 70s, there was open racism. It was not always the lynching, denying job type of racism. It was different. Black people still believed in the American Dream. And by the 80s, it was a lot better. You didn't hear about lynchings anymore. And it was rare that anyone even used a racial epithet. During that era, the parents did everything they could to sacrifice for their children's future. And most of those children fortunate enough to have such dedicated parents became upper middle class or better in one generation -- including many black families. Others, if that tradition was carried on, would take two or three generations. But they did it -- just like nearly all white families with "privilege." They made it because ancestors sacrificed their lives for their children's future. Today, nearly every case you can talk about where "the MAN was keeping you down" was a result of the lack of parents raising their children and instilling in them a sense of hope through parental sacrifice.