Dravin

No, it's being unwilling to assume wrong doing in the absence of evidence. Forgive those of us for which this is not our first rodeo and thus don't leap to the conclusion, "I saw something that looked bad on YouTube, it must mean something bad happened!"

Private citizens can own armored personal carriers. The issue with ownership would be any armament not the armor. There would also possibly be issues with them being street legal if you're just buying surplus APCs and not getting something custom made. No, they don't.

I like Utahn Mormons just fine, I lived there for a few years and my parents still live there. They have their quirks, flaws, and strengths. Mormons outside of Utah also have their quirks, their flaws, and their strengths. Some of those are the same and some of those are different. By and large I think a lot of complaints from either direction stem from disliking, or having a hard time understanding, that which is alien and preferring the familiar.

Because the Olympics, a very high profile event with the potential to reflect either positively or negatively on the Church in an area with a high LDS population, were held in Utah. You had a huge influx of visitors and public attention and they easily would have focused on any negative experiences, an education push makes sense even if hypothetically Utah Mormons were better fellow-shippers. It's akin to a city making an extra effort to clean the streets when the President comes to visit. It isn't an indicator that said city has dirtier streets than other cities. Are Utah Mormons worse, the same, or better fellow-shippers than other Mormons? I don't know, but the push you reference doesn't really tell you one way or the other considering it makes sense regardless of which particular case is true. I will say this though, even if the rate of bad fellow-shippers is the same across the Church the sheer number of Mormons in Utah means in absolute terms Utah has more of them and since you are probably going to interact with more Mormons in Utah than elsewhere (baring some other spots in the Jello Belt), you'd be more likely to encounter such.

Potential? Sure, but then a parking ticket is potentially a misuse of power (severe or not depends on your mindset and the particulars). The more important question is if it is a misuse of power. What you're seeing is people react to the more important question rather than focusing on if it could be bad (mostly by saying they lack sufficient knowledge to answer the question).

I can't believe any man would seriously post what you just posted. If they do they only do it out of fear. If you were truly free you would not post such things. Come on people - this is 2014! Not 100 A.D. So come, be honest with us. Who do you fear, HoosierGuy, that you say such things?

I lean towards fixing it myself but I keep in mind my limitations in: Time Tools Parts Experience

Theoretically he's prevented every rape that he could have committed by didn't. Just an observation, not an argument.

Probably for the same reason you see messages concerning how to avoid being mugged but you see relatively little in the form of teaching people not to mug. It's assumed to be understood that mugging is immoral and illegal and that an information campaign highlighting those things is targeting people who already are aware of the message and disregard it anyway. I suppose one can challenge that assumption, I'm not arguing for the assumption, but it's why the discrepancy between minimizing risk messages and don't commit crimes messages. Accepting the need for a "men, don't rape" message, I don't see why that invalidates messages concerning minimizing risk. It would seem to me an argument for both messages to be communicated. The reasons to stop one message in the favor of the other one would boil down to: A) The messages are contradictory (which I don't think they are). B) Either funding or public attention limits the ability to put out both messages simultaneously and therefore the more effective one should have precedence. This I suppose would be a good area for social scientists to study. Note: Just to be perfectly clear even though I felt I adequately disclaimed my comments. I am simply analyzing the why, I am not arguing that the why is correct.

The thing to me is when "rape culture" gets thrown around whenever people make statements concerning our actions and behaviors influencing people. You wanna talk about rape jokes or actual arguments of, "She deserved it/earned it because X" then yes, I can take you seriously when you use that term. You want to argue that those who are victims of rape have psychological issues that will make them prone to misconstruing Elder Callister's comments? I can follow that. That said misconstruction seems to make such comments a part of"rape culture", not so much.

If it actually came down to honoring my wife or honoring a friend or what have you my wife wins every time. I think in most cases confidence keeping doesn't require one to honor one over the other. I suppose though if someone is trying to get me to confirm I won't share said confidence with my wife then one of two things is happening: 1) They think I'll feel obligated to tell my wife because it concerns her (or as a general principle). 2) They think my standard operating procedure is to share confidences with my wife. In either case they probably shouldn't be sharing that particular tidbit with me. Either I share everything with my wife as a matter of course (either in general or because it concerns her) and probably shouldn't be the repository of private information they don't want reaching my wife, or they are asking me to place my obligation to them higher than my obligation to my wife (as mentioned above, my wife wins).

At the risk of starting a holy war, In-N-Out Burger, while being better than something like McDonald's is mediocre and their fries are terrible (in my opinion). Though to be fair it's possible that's just the American Fork location dishonoring their legacy.

I like to experiment with my burgers when I go out, that's why I like places like Cheese Burgers in Paradise or Red Robin when they often have a promotional burger I can try out or I can pick something out of several options I find appealing depending on mood. If options are limited while eating out I tend to go with a black and bleu burger. At home I tend to do black and green burgers (gorgonzola instead of bleu cheese). Bacon if in the mood, and avocado if on sale, hold the mayonnaise and ketchup*, with good mustard, lettuce, and tomato if garden fresh. Onion depends on if there is left over onion sitting in the fridge, I'm disinclined to cut up an onion just for burgers unless I'm hosting. The buns tend to be Sandwich thins. *If it's a flavored mayonnaise on a restaurant burger I'll generally give them the benefit of the doubt if the flavoring sounds interesting enough and order it with. If it's just plain old mayonnaise though I ask them to hold it. I also deal with ketchup under similar conditions except the standard for it sounding interesting is higher.

You are, however cool, with forcing people to not wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces. I take it the hypocrisy of your position is lost on you? You offer 'freedom' in the form of reducing what they can choose. You've spouted a lot of inanities HoosierGuy, but this one is easily in the top ten.

Fear in this context means to have reverential awe, respect, or piety, it's an archaic definition that's maintained because of it's use in non-modern language translations of the Bible, a prime example being the KJV. It can be a little confusing because the word is also used in the scriptures in the 'scared' sense, but the term God-Fearing is talking about people who hold God in reverence and respect him not people who are terrified of him.

Particularly when a fair amount of members see attendance at these meetings as a religious duty as either part of their calling or as part of sustaining those in charge of the meeting. It looks like the letter is specifically directed to Utahn units. Personally, if I was in charge of scheduling meetings I'd look at it as having a principle behind it that can be applied outside of Utah.

That's the choice the communities made with their wallet. They decided the value that Wal-Mart provided was greater than the value the local businesses provided (which includes things like local flavor). The presence of Wal-Mart doesn't drive Mom and Pops out of business, the market deciding that Wal-Mart provided the greater value does. It's not unfortunate for the owner of the building who has found a new equilibrium for what the market will bear with regards to rent. It's also no unfortunate for the municipality collecting property tax with now has greater tax revenue. It's also not unfortunate for a new business that decides it can capitalize on the changes in the area to open up shop (either to start, to expand, or to move). It does suck for the owner who has to close up shop, but it's not obvious to me why they should be favored over the property owner, the municipality, and the new business owner.

Additionally - 1) If the new store is high end and the original store is low end it is unlikely to interfere with the market covered by the local Mom and Pop's Grocery or what have you. That is to say, a $250 a haircut boutique does not steal Supercuts' customers, the overlap on the market is negligible. 2) If the store's market is the same, or has sufficient overlap, as the local Mom and Pop store's and they out-compete them then the new store is providing better value than the local Mom and Pop as determined by the market. A new store doesn't just magically gain market share, it does so by convincing customers it is the better alternative (either objectively or as a value judgement of the market). If the locals determine that the new place is the superior value who am I to insist they are wrong simply because it is newer, or bigger, than the Mom and Pop?

Am I the only one who sees the irony in Lakumi's statement? As part of a chain of posts centered on objecting to the idea that people should be free to discriminate Lakmui states his refusal to live next to certain types of people.

Do we even know how the funding of this thing is going to work? I scanned the article and didn't notice any specifics.

The problem is that as LDS we should understand that the reason to abstain from sex prior to marriage, and to get married in the first place, is not to maximize one's economic advantage in a relationship and further one's ability to control it, but because abstinence and marriage are the right thing to do. I don't begrudge academia looking at things from a purely economic perspective (and I find it interesting from that perspective), but I think as Latter-day Saints we should make sure we don't become too enamored of the argument even if the conclusion is in line with our own. You see somewhat of what I'm talking about concerning the Word of Wisdom, people tend to get so enamored of the scientific backing that some aspects of the Word of Wisdom have that they sometimes lose focus on why we're obeying the Word of Wisdom. The fundamental reason to abstain from tobacco for LDS is not because of the studies suggesting tobacco is bad for you, but because we've covenanted to do so.

The interesting things is if you flip the traditional roles, from an economic perspective the man should use his leverage of being the sole breadwinner to maximize what he gets in the relationship. I expect an article talking about how men should use their fiscal advantage, and the withholding or metering out thereof, to control the relationship wouldn't be well received even though the underlying economic principles are the same. Personally, I think any relationship the hits the point where the parties are actively seeking to maximize economic advantage over the other to control the relationship has reached a bad place. A relationship shouldn't be a competitive market place, it should be a cooperative with a shared goal and purpose.

Fundamentally the article is talking about the power the comes from having something that someone else wants that they have to get from you (the you in this case being women collectively). While traditional gender norms are changing in the Church you still see women as the gate-keepers on dates and marriage*, and there are forms of physical affection that are generally considered acceptable and which one can argue the same paradigm exists. In short, if men are going to women for something that they can only (either through biology or culture) get from women then women are in the economic position the article is talking about, it doesn't just apply to sex. *The expectation is that men convince women to date them, and that they convince women to marry them. At least that's my perception.

Thread Closed.

I'm expecting they'll get hit by Starbuck's legal team... hard.