Mormon Social Justice Warriors up in arms about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

[Larry Cotrell]

38 minutes ago, wenglund said:

That would be a remarkably irrational conclusion. The atheists I know tend not to be that idiotic. So, I find it very hard to believe.

Well, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but I do know people that draw that conclusion; I'm glad you are not one of them.

[wenglund]

8 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Well, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but I do know people that draw that conclusion; I'm glad you are not one of them.

It would be as irrational were Christians to ascribe pathological lying and rampant corruption to atheism because most atheists voted for Hillary. It is non-sequitur in several ways.

Thanks, Wade Englund 

[Larry Cotrell]

4 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It would be as irrational were Christians to ascribe pathological lying and rampant corruption to atheism because most atheists voted for Hillary. It is non-sequitur in several ways.

Thanks, Wade Englund 

Agreed

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

For the record, the only thing he confessed to was kissing without asking ("Just kissing"). Here is the transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html?_r=0: 

Are you saying that kissing is jail-able sexual assault?

Uninvited kissing may well constitute traditional assault which is jailable even if non-sexual in nature; but in context of the transcript it is obvious that Trump wanted his hearers to believe that he (Trump) knew, from personal experience, that his wealth/status allowed him to grab women's genitalia as well as to kiss them.

If Trump's apologists want to deploy the "well, he was just lying" routine to paint their guy as a paragon of modern American manhood, that's their business.  But if they want to go further and show their guy's factual innocence, then they have to explain all those women who came forward saying "why, yes!  Trump did to me the same thing he boasted about being able to do to others."  and they have to explain why a Trump stooge (wrongly) told the press that Trump had a perfect legal right to rape his own wife.

Dismiss that as "virtue signaling" if you like, but you know what?  For all my sins, I've never boasted about or been accused of forcing myself on a woman.  I daresay that in this particular venue, that particular virtue is rather commonly shared.  So when Trump fans come on board and try to tell us what a virtuous guy Trump is--misdeeds like this are going to get mentioned and judgments will be made.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Dismiss that as "virtue signaling" if you like, but you know what?  For all my sins, I've never boasted about or been accused of forcing myself on a woman.  I daresay that in this particular venue, that particular virtue is rather commonly shared.  So when Trump fans come on board and try to tell us what a virtuous guy Trump is--misdeeds like this are going to get mentioned and judgments will be made.

Ok I have to admit I had not heard of "virtue signaling" before...

Now that I have looked it up... frankly I don't want to be in any group where not assaulting (sexual or otherwise) a person (male or female) is considered a standout behavior...  I want to be with and in groups that consider that to be baseline normal required behavior... where not meeting it gets you in serious problems.

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Uninvited kissing may well constitute traditional assault which is jailable even if non-sexual in nature; but in context of the transcript it is obvious that Trump wanted his hearers to believe that he (Trump) knew, from personal experience, that his wealth/status allowed him to grab women's genitalia as well as to kiss them.

If Trump's apologists want to deploy the "well, he was just lying" routine to paint their guy as a paragon of modern American manhood, that's their business.  But if they want to go further and show their guy's factual innocence, then they have to explain all those women who came forward saying "why, yes!  Trump did to me the same thing he boasted about being able to do to others."  and they have to explain why a Trump stooge (wrongly) told the press that Trump had a perfect legal right to rape his own wife.

Dismiss that as "virtue signaling" if you like, but you know what?  For all my sins, I've never boasted about or been accused of forcing myself on a woman.  I daresay that in this particular venue, that particular virtue is rather commonly shared.  So when Trump fans come on board and try to tell us what a virtuous guy Trump is--misdeeds like this are going to get mentioned and judgments will be made.

I am not attempting to defend Trump's behavior or whatever may or may not have been said by so-called "stooges" around him. Nor am I attempting to paint him as a virtuous guy. .Nothing I have said can reasonably suggest that I have. Instead, my interest is in accuracy and fairness. Again, all Trump admitted to was uninvited kissing. If that is a jail-able offense, then a whole lot of grandparents, uncles, and aunts are in a world of trouble.

While I think all accusation warrant investigation, the fact that there have been a rash of fake rape charges over the last decade or so, and false rape culture narratives promoted, particularly give the plausible political motivations, the investigation deserves to go both ways. Until the investigations are completed, and a fair trial given, our system of jurisprudence advises we view the accused as innocent until proven guilty. You, of course, are free to do otherwise.

And, in regards to the "p" word, if you read the transcript, he wasn't "bragging." Rather, he was answering a question with a general observation about "stars" in relation to women who are star-struck.  

Now, you can leverage all this into a soap-box full of rash judgments and harsh moral indignation, but you run the risk of being judges in like manner. To each their own.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Ok I have to admit I had not heard of "virtue signaling" before...

Now that I have looked it up... frankly I don't want to be in any group where not assaulting (sexual or otherwise) a person (male or female) is considered a standout behavior...  I want to be with and in groups that consider that to be baseline normal required behavior... where not meeting it gets you in serious problems.

My mention of virtue signalling wasn't so much in reference to people calling out Trump for uninvited kissing, or his explaining the realities of groupies, or even his using the F and P words, but more for people who exploit celebrations of democracy for self-aggrandizement using absurd comparisons to Hitler to demonize opponents.   Virtue signaling is when people publicly alert the mob that they have joined in the character lynching in hopes of earning brownie points.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am not attempting to defend Trump's behavior or whatever may or may not have been said by so-called "stooges" around him. Nor am I attempting to paint him as a virtuous guy. .Nothing I have said can reasonably suggest that I have. Instead, my interest is in accuracy and fairness. Again, all Trump admitted to was uninvited kissing. If that is a jail-able offense, then a whole lot of grandparents, uncles, and aunts are in a world of trouble.

While I think all accusation warrant investigation, the fact that there have been a rash of fake rape charges over the last decade or so, and false rape culture narratives promoted, particularly give the plausible political motivations, the investigation deserves to go both ways. Until the investigations are completed, and a fair trial given, our system of jurisprudence advises we view the accused as innocent until proven guilty. You, of course, are free to do otherwise.

And, in regards to the "p" word, if you read the transcript, he wasn't "bragging." Rather, he was answering a question with a general observation about "stars" in relation to women who are star-struck.  

Now, you can leverage all this into a soap-box full of rash judgments and harsh moral indignation, but you run the risk of being judges in like manner. To each their own.

Thanks, Wade Englund

First off, an uninvited smooch from an uncle or a grandparent is light-years away from what Trump was boasting of; and to suggest otherwise would be more than a little disingenuous.

Second off, while I agree with "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law" as a *legal* principle, it isn't a good principle for the selection of one's personal associations (you don't hire an accused pedophile to babysit your kids just because he hasn't been convicted); and as Trump himself conceded by alluding to Hillary Clinton's allegedly-criminal-but-unconvicted behavior:  it's not a good principle on which to choose political leaders.

Re the transcript:  This being a family board, I won't parse the text.  Suffice it to say:  contextually, that exchange was about what Trump had done and what Trump could get away with.

And you know what?  If I am ever dumb enough to say "women will let me kiss and grope them uninvited", you are quite welcome to a) assume that I am telling the truth, b) assume that I speak from personal experience, and c) make judgments about my character based on the conduct I have boasted of.  And any ill fallout from those judgments will be on *my* head, not yours.

See, this is one reason I think Trump is problematic for American decency.  Everything I have written in this post would have gone without saying to both an LDS and a Republican audience just a year ago.  But then we made Trump our nominee; and all of a sudden we're getting thoroughly Clintonesque explanations about why Trump didn't really mean what he said, why that's perfectly acceptible, and why sexual peccadilloes (within certain parameters, maybe) are really irrelevant to what the Presidency is all about.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

Just for context, here's John Adams, our 2nd president of the United States, talking about Alexander Hamilton, military commander at Yorktown, one of our founding fathers, author of the majority of the Federalist Papers, and creator of the coast guard:

Quote

What a pity it is that our Congress had not known this discovery, and that Alexander Hamiltons project [...] arose from a superabundance of secretions which he could not find Whores enough to draw off? and that the Same Vapours produced his Lyes and Slanders by which he totally destroyed his party forever and finally lost his Life in the field of honor.

Having read a bit about Hamilton, I can't say I totally disagree with Adams.  

Scumbags with sex scandals can still be a boon and a blessing to our nation.

Or, as former generations used to say about Nixon: "He may be a [beep], but he's OUR [beep]."

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Uninvited kissing may well constitute traditional assault which is jailable even if non-sexual in nature; but in context of the transcript it is obvious that Trump wanted his hearers to believe that he (Trump) knew, from personal experience, that his wealth/status allowed him to grab women's genitalia as well as to kiss them.

If Trump's apologists want to deploy the "well, he was just lying" routine to paint their guy as a paragon of modern American manhood, that's their business.  But if they want to go further and show their guy's factual innocence, then they have to explain all those women who came forward saying "why, yes!  Trump did to me the same thing he boasted about being able to do to others."  and they have to explain why a Trump stooge (wrongly) told the press that Trump had a perfect legal right to rape his own wife.

Dismiss that as "virtue signaling" if you like, but you know what?  For all my sins, I've never boasted about or been accused of forcing myself on a woman.  I daresay that in this particular venue, that particular virtue is rather commonly shared.  So when Trump fans come on board and try to tell us what a virtuous guy Trump is--misdeeds like this are going to get mentioned and judgments will be made.

Okay, assault is jailable.  Agreed.  Romney assaulted a classmate.  Mormons are not up in arms against it because... he's a Mormon?  Or is it just the sex thing that they're hyper sensitive about?  You know, like my Mormon mother-in-law who has no problem watching a guy beat up a girl in the movies but won't watch it if a guy and a girl had sex in the movies...

Edit:  Okay, I actually promised I won't get into these types of discussions on here anymore.  But, I don't want to delete this.  I might change my mind so don't be surprised if this disappears.

Edited January 9, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, estradling75 said:

frankly I don't want to be in any group where not assaulting (sexual or otherwise) a person (male or female) is considered a standout behavior...  I want to be with and in groups that consider that to be baseline normal required behavior... where not meeting it gets you in serious problems.

 Totally agree. You are known by the company you keep, after all. 

Wow. I agree with @estradling75 on something :: shudder :: 

Edited January 9, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Totally agree. You are known by the company you keep, after all. 

That reminds me of a poem:

One night late in October, when I was far from sober,

My feet began to stutter, so I lay down in the gutter.

A pig came by and lay down by my side

A lady walking by was heard to say, "You can tell a man who boozes, by the company he choses." 

And the pig got up and slowly walked away. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That reminds me of a poem:

One night late in October, when I was far from sober,

My feet began to stutter, so I lay down in the gutter.

A pig came by and lay down by my side

A lady walking by was heard to say, "You can tell a man who boozes, by the company he choses." 

And the pig got up and slowly walked away. 

I heard it this way:

A drunk walks into his apartment carrying a pig. His girlfriend says, "So where did you get the pig?" The drunk says "You see, it's like this..." She says "Shut up, I wasn't talking to you." 

 

[wenglund]

On 1/9/2017 at 6:37 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

First off, an uninvited smooch from an uncle or a grandparent is light-years away from what Trump was boasting of; and to suggest otherwise would be more than a little disingenuous.

Yes, I know. In fact I had indicated that I understood the difference and even included a smiley face to seal the point. Why that didn't show up in the text is a mystery to me.

Second off, while I agree with "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law" as a *legal* principle, it isn't a good principle for the selection of one's personal associations (you don't hire an accused pedophile to babysit your kids just because he hasn't been convicted); and as Trump himself conceded by alluding to Hillary Clinton's allegedly-criminal-but-unconvicted behavior:  it's not a good principle on which to choose political leaders.

While it is true that rules of evidence and judgement are different in courts of law than in courts of public opinion, the principles of reasonableness critical analysis, and fairness should still apply. Of course one wouldn't invite an accused rapist to babysit since, reasonably speaking, the risk factor to the children in question is way too high, just as the risk factors to the nation as a whole for exposing national secrets and selling political influence are to high in Clinton's case as a presidential candidate. However, the risk factor to the nation as a whole from groping of groupies is astonishing low. To use your words, it is light-years away...and to suggest otherwise would be more than a little disingenuous.

Re the transcript:  This being a family board, I won't parse the text.  Suffice it to say:  contextually, that exchange was about what Trump had done and what Trump could get away with.

Anyone interested can read the text (I provided a link). To me, the context of Trump's comments shifted from what Trump had done with certain beautiful women to what is generally possible for stars in relation to overly willing groupies. But, to each their own. The context was also a brief, private. locker-room-like conversation years ago, for which Trump apologized.

And you know what?  If I am ever dumb enough to say "women will let me kiss and grope them uninvited", you are quite welcome to a) assume that I am telling the truth, b) assume that I speak from personal experience, and c) make judgments about my character based on the conduct I have boasted of.  And any ill fallout from those judgments will be on *my* head, not yours.

Bully for you, though you clearly missed the point. I was speaking in terms of general principles, and not exactly the same circumstances. All our words and deed are subject to either harsh scrutiny or reasonable and even compassionate and merciful judgement. And, as the good book says, as we judge others, so shall we be judged. If you are fine with receiving the Nellie-like judgementalism similar to how you have scrutinized Trump, then no problem. (Of course I am  speaking somewhat tongue in cheek here)

See, this is one reason I think Trump is problematic for American decency.  Everything I have written in this post would have gone without saying to both an LDS and a Republican audience just a year ago.  But then we made Trump our nominee; and all of a sudden we're getting thoroughly Clintonesque explanations about why Trump didn't really mean what he said, why that's perfectly acceptible, and why sexual peccadilloes (within certain parameters, maybe) are really irrelevant to what the Presidency is all about.

You are miss-reading way to much into my comments and failing miserably to understand the Trump phenomena. Again, I am not defending or even dismissing Trumps locker-room comments. I find them disgusting, though I am willing to forgive given his speedy apology.

To me, this election wasn't about providing appropriate role models for decent male-female relationships, or even the basic question of moral decency--as it was during Bill Clinton's era. Rather, it was about the widespread corruption in our political system--in particular the entrenched, self-serving establishment of both parties (morphing somewhat into a una-party), the partisan media (who offer up propaganda disguised as news), self-serving donors and rampant corporate cronyism, and the use of immigration and refugee policies (favoring 3rd-world countries with totalitarian or socialist bents) to stack the electoral deck, thus further ensconcing the ruling elite.

For many of us, we weren't so much voting for Trump as we were voting for what Trump might possible do to the corrupt political system. He provided the prospect of a lose cannon hopefully wrecking havoc on the massively corrupt ship of politics.  He successfully defied the whole broken political system, thereby opening the prospect of making America great again.

In other words, it was about prioritization. My first choice was Dr. Ben Carson, in part because he was a stellar model of morality and goodness and virtue, etc..I thought he could be a great influence on the culture, and since, as Brietbart astutely noted, politics is downstream from culture, I though Carson's candidacy could serve as a way of clearing the murky waters of politics. However, after seeing how easily he was ravaged by the political system, I realized that pouring clear water into the toilet bowl of DC wouldn't cut it. The clog needed to be unplugged and the swamp drained (to mix metaphors). So, I was willing to over-look the plumbers crack of uninvited kissing and tawdry language in hopes of getting the stinky mess cleared out and hopefully cleaned up. I didn't have to like everything about the plumber as long as he gets the job done.

I hope this helps. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by wenglund
Clarity and spelling errors.

[wenglund]

On 1/9/2017 at 8:15 AM, anatess2 said:

Okay, assault is jailable.  Agreed.  Romney assaulted a classmate.  Mormons are not up in arms against it because... he's a Mormon?  Or is it just the sex thing that they're hyper sensitive about?  You know, like my Mormon mother-in-law who has no problem watching a guy beat up a girl in the movies but won't watch it if a guy and a girl had sex in the movies...

Edit:  Okay, I actually promised I won't get into these types of discussions on here anymore.  But, I don't want to delete this.  I might change my mind so don't be surprised if this disappears.

One of the problems I have with Political Correctness and the loose tossing around of labels, is It manipulatively compresses the broad spectrum of wrongdoings, thereby engender one of two things:

1) Either it trivializes or renders almost meaningless certain words, like "assault," by lumping in youthful hair-cutting pranks with severe spousal beatings.. Or...

2) It produces overly harsh reactions to relatively benign events, like lumping youthful hair cutting prank with sever spousal beatings.

To avoid either, I prefer to reserve strong and provocative language to circumstances that really deserve it. For example, I might reserve the word "assault" and "abuse" for things like physical and strident verbal beatings rather than uninvited kisses or youthful hair cutting pranks. But that may just be me.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[mordorbund]

On 1/9/2017 at 9:50 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Just for context, here's John Adams, our 2nd president of the United States, talking about Alexander Hamilton, military commander at Yorktown, one of our founding fathers, author of the majority of the Federalist Papers, and creator of the coast guard:

Having read a bit about Hamilton, I can't say I totally disagree with Adams.  

Scumbags with sex scandals can still be a boon and a blessing to our nation.

Or, as former generations used to say about Nixon: "He may be a [beep], but he's OUR [beep]."

And you can see how the coast guard compares to the other branches in our armed forces.

Strong Moral Leadership Matters!!

 

ETA: Submitted via ctrl+enter

Edited January 10, 2017 by mordorbund

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/9/2017 at 8:15 AM, anatess2 said:

Okay, assault is jailable.  Agreed.  Romney assaulted a classmate.  Mormons are not up in arms against it because... he's a Mormon?  Or is it just the sex thing that they're hyper sensitive about?  You know, like my Mormon mother-in-law who has no problem watching a guy beat up a girl in the movies but won't watch it if a guy and a girl had sex in the movies...

I agree that Romney's teenaged antics are deeply disturbing. Had my kid been the victim, I'd be pushing for charges.  But I think there's somethino to be said about not being a gloating burro about--and even repeating--said antics well into the sixth decade of one's life.

And yes, all other things being equal I hold sexual assault to be more egregious generally than traditional physical assault (all other things being equal).  If one wants to dismiss that as weird Mormon hyper-sensitivity about sex, I have no interest in pursuing that discussion.  One can take it up with Mormon himself.

13 hours ago, wenglund said:

You are . . . failing miserably to understand the Trump phenomena.

. . . . 

In other words, it was about prioritization.

No, I get the Trump phenomenon.  I get the frustration with the inaction by Republican power brokers, and the lack of pushback against progressive gutting of traditional American institutions.  (I do think it too-easily dimisses inconvenient processes that have historically kept progressivism somewhat in check even when conservatives were out of power; and I think it is too quick to seek witches within its own ranks; but that isn't really germane to this particular discussion.)

But what I also get about the Trump phenomenon, in the context of "[beep]gate", is that this talk of "prioritization" boils down to a seven-word refrain:

Not my daughter; ergo, not my problem.

And that sickens me for political as well as moral reasons.  Because the idea that it's okay to subjugate the natural rights of "the one" for the benefit of "the many"--that's collectivist bull-poogey.  Traditional conservativism was not okay with such mercenary infringements of personal liberty, or with the establishment of a ruling class that would be exempt from the standards of law and decency that bind the rest of us.

I mean--other than those scrapes with Joe Smith and his followers; weren't Governors Boggs and Ford able public servants who wrought prosperity and served their constituencies well?  Haven't Mormons given them a bum rap?  Shouldn't we just suck it up and accept the ways *we* were violated as being necessary collateral consequences of these yuuuugely visionary statesmen?  It isn't like they were actually convicted of anything . . . 

On 1/9/2017 at 7:50 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Just for context, here's John Adams, our 2nd president of the United States, talking about Alexander Hamilton, military commander at Yorktown, one of our founding fathers, author of the majority of the Federalist Papers, and creator of the coast guard:

Having read a bit about Hamilton, I can't say I totally disagree with Adams.  

Scumbags with sex scandals can still be a boon and a blessing to our nation.

Or, as former generations used to say about Nixon: "He may be a [beep], but he's OUR [beep]."

Yeah, I sympathize with Adams' point; but the simple fact is that if we take D&C 98 at face value then God seems to disagree with both Adams and Nixon.  The question for me is, whether He will raise up better leaders to us if we use the scriptural criteria He has given us to identify and reject the counterfeits.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But what I also get about the Trump phenomenon, in the context of "[beep]gate", is that this talk of "prioritization" boils down to a seven-word refrain:

Not my daughter; ergo, not my problem.

 

What is [beep]gate? 

In any case, I don't think Trump would have no problem gutting the natural rights of one over many.  Rather, it's a matter of preserving one's country over another's when the other choice is losing one's country - America First does not imply in any shape, way, or form America only.  But I'm really just shooting blindly as I don't know what beepgate is.

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, wenglund said:

One of the problems I have with Political Correctness and the loose tossing around of labels, is It manipulatively compresses the broad spectrum of wrongdoings, thereby engender one of two things:

1) Either it trivializes or renders almost meaningless certain words, like "assault," by lumping in youthful hair-cutting pranks with severe spousal beatings.. Or...

2) It produces overly harsh reactions to relatively benign events, like lumping youthful hair cutting prank with sever spousal beatings.

To avoid either, I prefer to reserve strong and provocative language to circumstances that really deserve it. For example, I might reserve the word "assault" and "abuse" for things like physical and strident verbal beatings rather than uninvited kisses or youthful hair cutting pranks. But that may just be me.

Thanks, Wade Englund

That's not just you.  That's me too.  I hate how the words Racist, Sexist, Bigot, and even Feminism, Liberal, Conservative hold no meaning anymore.

[NeuroTypical]

On 1/9/2017 at 8:34 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

That reminds me of a poem:

Song.  Rudy Valee.  My dad used to sing about the pig, I never knew it was a real song until just now. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Song.  Rudy Valee.  My dad used to sing about the pig, I never knew it was a real song until just now. 

Lol, thank, I didn't know either.

[wenglund]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IBut what I also get about the Trump phenomenon, in the context of "[beep]gate", is that this talk of "prioritization" boils down to a seven-word refrain:

Not my daughter; ergo, not my problem.

And that sickens me for political as well as moral reasons.  Because the idea that it's okay to subjugate the natural rights of "the one" for the benefit of "the many"--that's collectivist bull-poogey.  Traditional conservativism was not okay with such mercenary infringements of personal liberty, or with the establishment of a ruling class that would be exempt from the standards of law and decency that bind the rest of us.

You again completely misread my comments. I spoke about prioritizing issues, not natural rights. No one's natural rights are being subjugated by the Trump phenomena--at least not in the way you are suggesting. No one's personal liberties are being infringed--again, not in the way you are suggesting. No one is saying that someone else's daughter "is not my problem," nor do we wish to see the ruling class exempt from the general standards of law and decency. Where are you coming up with this nonsense?

I am all for giving the complainants their day in court. In fact I welcome it--in part because they aren't the only individuals who have natural rights. The accused do as well. And, we shall see whether the accusations are false or true, and let the chips fall where they may.

Please understand that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the U.S. each year. As such, it is not physically possible to cover individually each and every one of them as a part of national or presidential campaign, though they can be handled by local jurisdictions as the Constitution provides. That they are not  each made an issue in presidential elections, is not a subjugation of their rights or an infringement on personal liberty, but a rational prioritization of issues and relegating to jurisdiction where rights have the greatest Constitution chance of being protected, To not get this is to not grasp the fundamentals of republic governmental reality.

While I am against "collectivism," particularly as mapped out by socialism of any sort, I am not so naive as to think that there aren't any morals that prioritize the many over the one. In fact, when our soldiers put their lives on the line, they are subjugating their individual lives to preserve the lives and liberty of many others. The same is true of policemen and firefighters and everyday heroes, Traditional conservatism honors such morals and bravery, and would be sickened to have them considered as "collectivist bull-poogey."

Furthermore, the very notion of majority rule, even under a republic form of government, unavoidably subjugates the will, and to some extent the rights, of individuals to that of the people as a whole.

Many laws unavoidably restrict individual freedom in favor of protecting the rights of the whole. One cannot legally drink and drive. One cannot legally practice medicine without a license. One cannot legally take the law into one's own hand. One cannot legally dump their sewage into rivers and streams, One cannot legally drive as fast as they want. They must legally stop at red lights and occupied crosswalks. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the point.

In short, prioritizing issues, and even the subjugation of individual rights and liberties, isn't necessarily a function of "collectivism," but a recognition of basic elements of society.

This principle holds true in some Christian communities. Christ, himself, suffered for all, and advised his followers to become like him and lose themselves in the service to others. The law of sacrifice is the very embodiment of this divine principle.

Please, get a clue.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Edited January 11, 2017 by wenglund
Clarity and spelling corrections

[prisonchaplain]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 8:05 AM, NightSG said:

We're talking about in reality, not Seattle.

Hey!!!  I resemble that remark. 

[prisonchaplain]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 3:45 PM, wenglund said:

It would be as irrational were Christians to ascribe pathological lying and rampant corruption to atheism because most atheists voted for Hillary. It is non-sequitur in several ways.

Thanks, Wade Englund 

Ehhh...I don't know...take away the inflammatory adjectives (pathological and rampant) and it kinda starts to make sense . . .