Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church

[The Folk Prophet]

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

People take their own culture and then try to make it so that anyone who doesn't do what they think, is committing a grave sin. 

Some people approach some things that are cultural as if they are doctrinal sins. I doubt very much that very many who considers drinking Dr. Pepper a sin considers it a "grave" sin or that Democrats are "gross" sinners and "terrible". Misguided, sure. Out of sync with the ideals presented in General Conferences? Sure. "Grave", "gross", and "terrible"? Rare.

35 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

They'll ask why they are not excommunicated for the most minor offenses, and then ask what gives someone else the authority to NOT excommunicate them for such a minor thing.

So you say. I doubt this is very common either. I also get the idea that you like to apply the term "minor" to a great many things that are not minor at all, simply relatively not as severe as the things which are the most severe. But, either way, I doubt very much that the majority of members are going around wondering why so-n-so didn't get excommunicated for a "minor" offense. Now if so-n-so committed adultery repeatedly or murdered someone then I expect the question might be asked quite a bit -- but it still should not be. As you've pointed out, and as no one has disagreed, excommunication is between the person and their ecclesiastic leaders. No one disagrees with you on that.

40 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Instead, the real question is what gives THEM the authority to decide such minor things should be things to excommunicate others.  What gives them the right to over ride any counsel from the General Leadership of the LDS church?

I don't believe this is happening, with very, very rare exceptions.

41 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

These individuals will do all they can to get those they do not like out of the church.  This goes FAR beyond what you are describing.  It's an active thing where, because someone is different, they'll do what they can to force someone out of the ward and church doing all they can possible, even if that individual has committed NO real sin.

And these individuals are wrong. And if this sort of thing happens it is FAR beyond what I am describing. But I think it is less common, and the more common is closer to what I have described.

30 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As an example, in my ward we have a large number of minorities (mostly Hispanics).  We have a very low attendance of minorities.  We do have one that attends.  Multiple occasions have come up where members come to the Bishopric and either make false accusations, or say they just cannot work with the minorities and having minorities there make them uncomfortable, or other such things.  They aren't telling that member not to come, but they are taking an active role in trying to force that member away and out of the ward and the church.  Personally, I have things to do with my time, but I need to smile and be very nice.  However, it makes me VERY understanding, at least to a degree when others minorities in our ward talk about how they do not feel welcome, how they feel there is racism, or how they feel like they are not represented at all in our local area.

And yes, they don't allow their kids to play with the minorities kids.  I've seen it where the kid were starting to be friends and the parents then tell their kids directly not to play with the other kids.  They won't tell the minorities, but they will tell their kids.  When the kids are young enough, at times those kids will come right out and say it as well, which gives no mystery as to what is happening to me or any of the others.

Yes, no one has told them they are not welcome directly to their faces, but the actions of the ward members speak loudly enough for any of them to hear.

This is against what the church stands for and what the church is about.  Yet, we see it occur FAR too much.  It isn't just those with tattoos, it's many of the members out there that have been isolated away that we need to welcome back with open arms, that we need MORE of in our church.  If we had all the minorities in my ward come out, we'd have enough active members for another ward!  That's a massive number of inactives.  There is a huge push in recent years to activate inactive members, but rather than hearing the advice of some of the 12 apostles out there, we'd rather judge and be judgmental in accordance with how our culture has been before, rather than listening to what they say.

You have a very cynical view of your fellow members.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you disagree with the 12 apostles and their decisions in regards to him, like Folk Prophet, instead of asking me where I get my authority on this...

Why don't you ask them...because you are asking why Bill Marriott is not punished and making that judgment without discussion or justification. 

To be clear, I suggested the distribution of porn be made illegal with fines and/or jail time as a consequence. I said very little about Bill Marriott's specific situation because I know very little about it, and I certainly did not ask why he wasn't excommunicated. You're making stuff up.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Actually, it goes FAR beyond that, as you have demonstrated in this thread.  People take their own culture and then try to make it so that anyone who doesn't do what they think, is committing a grave sin.  Not a conservative or a Republican, then they'll start saying things about them being gross sinners and terrible people.

JJ, I get what you are saying here and I don't really disagree with you-but every post you make bro you mention how you aren't a conservative and that you are much more liberal than the average LDS. So am I, for sure-so I agree with you. But I think we get the point. 

Anyone who treats minorities the way you are describing is abhorrent and not acting in accordance with gospel teaching. Maybe I'm naive, but for the life of me I can't imagine 95% of LDS wards treating minorities like how you are describing. 

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@JohnsonJones, although I really shouldn't have to explain this, you clearly don't understand.

In response to your statement, "I'm not your judge is what I'm saying, and unless I was your bishop I really don't have any thoughts on whether you are good or not good in doing so." I rhetorically asked, essentially -- What about something more severe, for example, the sex-slave industry? Meaning, is your statement universal or do you only apply the "I'm not your judge" idea to certain actions?

The hyperbolic nature of my question is, as should be obvious, meant to express the idea that eventually, at some point, you should be my judge and should have thoughts on whether I am good or not good in doing something. The idea that you propose that I'm comparing tobacco usage to it in level of severity is a nonsensical, shortsighted response. Because...duh.

The idea here is that, as I have said, at some level of severity we should judge each others actions as right or wrong. The disputation amounts to where we draw the line. My inference that you implied there is no line -- we simply shouldn't judge -- in my opinion, needed to be clarified or corrected. I expect you agree that there is, actually, a line, and that we should, at some level, judge others for their behaviors and actions. If you disagree with this then we are at an impasse. If you, as any reasonable sane person would, agree that those selling children into the sex-slave industry deserve our judgment, then we can safely move forward in agreement on the idea that there is, indeed, a line, and only its position is being questioned.

I'm gathering you believe that line to be whether one is excommunicated over a matter, and/or, whether something is legal or not? Is that accurate? Or do you think the line can ever be applied to more moderate instances of morality and the application thereof?

Let me be clear, I am absolutely against Human trafficking.  The very FACT that you find it comparable to growing tobacco speaks VOLUMES about your thought process.  It was to the point where I considered if I should turn you in as it may indicate you yourself have some form of involvement.  What you stated is a VERY serious thing, and the fact that you do NOT see how serious a problem or thing it is, is VERY CONCERNING.

I cannot condone your actions, and if I haven't been clear, there is a line, but making things up and going stating things that are against the guidance and direction of the 12 apostles, the Church leadership, and other things, speaks FAR more clearly on your intent than anything in regards to what I've stated.

Unlike you, on things where it is NOT clear cut, I have stated in this thread it is between the individual and their local leadership.  that isn't giving anyone a free pass, but recognizing that this is something that is taken care of on a LOCAL level, not something that is a general yes or no thing from individual members who think they have the authority to pass judgments.  On such things, if you feel different, I've provided the exact example on what we were discussing, which was the Marriotts, over and over again.  I've been explicitly clear on this.

Once again, if you disagree on this, take it up with the 12 apostles as you are DISAGREEING with them directly without any other explanations as to WHY you disagree with their decisions in this matter.  You've attempted to change it to accusing me of making this decision, but I'm not his Bishop, nor have I ever been his bishop.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

JohnsonJones, this is not hard. Seriously, it's straightforward. YOU, not the apostles, made the claim that the Word of Wisdom violations were "quite minor". Thus it is YOU, not the apostles, whose place it is to justify that statement.

The Folk Prophet and I have no argument with the apostles. I doubt there are two people on this list who have more respect for them or who listen more closely to their teachings. Rather, we have an argument with your teachings, and we therefore ask you to substantiate your authority for such a pronouncement.

No, we are not.

The same entity that gives YOU the right to RAPE SMALL ANIMALS.

How's your tolerance for people who freely change the topic of conversation, avoid responding to direct questions, and take others to task for not talking about what they want to?

I WOULD CLAIM THAT...except this is a discussion about Bill Marriott, which I've brought up repeatedly.  If you choose to ignore that, that is on YOU.

However, I've clarified what is minor and what is major.  It is pretty clear, WoW violations are NOT things that will get you excommunicated, and normally not even disfellowshipped.  That is the guidance we are given. This stuff is directly from the church.  It is NOT a secret.   If you disagree with that, this is NOT I who you need to take it up with.  Once again that is the TWELVE APOSTLES and GENERAL LDS LEADERSHIP.

Are you guys even LDS?  How do you not know this?

Once again, you are equating a CRIME (bestiality is a crime in the US and most of the West) with something that isn't even going to get one excommunicated in the LDS church. 

This is overly weird with your comparisons of crimes with non-crimes.

This is VERY unexpected coming from an LDS board and Saints, but it DOES fit with the stereotype that some express about how judgmental LDS members are at times.  That actually makes me feel very sad about these types of expression coming from those who are purportedly LDS.

[JohnsonJones]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To be clear, I suggested the distribution of porn be made illegal with fines and/or jail time as a consequence. I said very little about Bill Marriott's specific situation because I know very little about it, and I certainly did not ask why he wasn't excommunicated. You're making stuff up.

To be clear, I've pointed out Marriott as the example of who we are discussing.  That's my topic of discussion.  If you deviated from that, you did NOT make it clear.  In fact, you used him as a very example for your very GROSS and disgusting excuse of criminal intent which is considered even particularly disgusting in human trafficking.

To be clear, I do NOT condone that example in relation to it either.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

 

How's your tolerance for people who freely change the topic of conversation, avoid responding to direct questions, and take others to task for not talking about what they want to?

Probably MUCH higher than those who equate Word of Wisdom problems with the same equality as Federal crimes and International Human Rights violations.  I'd say much higher than those who advocate that Word of Wisdom violations are similar to Human Trafficking and Bestiality.  I can't believe people are equating these even on the same scale...it boggles the imagination.

I realize this came on because we were discussing a hypothetical Tobacco farmer that very few knew.  Instead, I brought out someone who everyone can look up and see his record in regards to actually selling (not just growing) things that violate the Word of Wisdom, and that led that he also did things that many would even consider far worse than that.

However, NONE of what he did broke the laws of the land where he was doing them, unlike the comparisons a few have brought up that I DID have problems with.  His are NOT clear cut violations that we can actually state yes or no on, which is why there can be a huge amount of contemplation on why he was in good standing in regards to our opinons.

However, his actions are in no wise crimes, but what people are trying to compare them to, ARE crimes and in some cases  VERY clear cut on what type of approach Leaders are supposed to take to them as handed down from the First Presidency or other church Leadership at Church Headquarters.  These are not comparable items, and in some cases, rather disgusting to even bring up.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

except this is a discussion about Bill Marriott, which I've brought up repeatedly

No, JohnsonJones. It is not.The fact that you brought up Bill Marriott does not magically change the discussion to being about Bill Marriott. I know you think it should, since you said it. But it doesn't.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, I've clarified what is minor and what is major.

So, when you say "Word of Wisdom violations are MINOR!", you mean that they won't get you excommunicated. Of course, neither will living off of welfare when you are able-bodied, using pornography, or cursing at your wife. So I suppose all those things are minor, too.

I disagree that the line for "minor sins" is whether you can get excommunicated for them. If that's how low you personally set the bar, then I guess you can do what you want. But don't expect us to accept your assessment. Some of us don't think that excommunication is the standard divider between minor and major.

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Once again, you are equating a CRIME (bestiality is a crime in the US and most of the West) with something that isn't even going to get one excommunicated in the LDS church. 

"Crime" is purely definitional. Fifty years ago, public nudity was a crime. Today you probably would not even get a citation for it. When we bring up extreme examples, it is to more clearly illustrate the absurdity of your position.

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Are you guys even LDS?  How do you not know this?

Yeah! How come you don't agree with me? You must be BAD!

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is VERY unexpected coming from an LDS board and Saints, but it DOES fit with the stereotype that some express about how judgmental LDS members are at times.

Given what you wrote immediately above, there is a lot of humorous irony in this statement, all the more humorous because it was unintended.

[The Folk Prophet]

Of all the twilighty zoney conversations I've ever had, this has become the twilighty zoneyist of them all.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

1 hour ago, Vort said:

How's your tolerance for people who freely change the topic of conversation, avoid responding to direct questions, and take others to task for not talking about what they want to?

Probably MUCH higher than those who equate Word of Wisdom problems with the same equality as Federal crimes and International Human Rights violations.  I'd say much higher than those who advocate that Word of Wisdom violations are similar to Human Trafficking and Bestiality.  I can't believe people are equating these even on the same scale...it boggles the imagination.

"You sin differently! You're bad!"

I'm literally laughing at this.

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I realize this came on because we were discussing a hypothetical Tobacco farmer that very few knew.

Out of curiosity, precisely how many people did know this hypothetical tobacco farmer?

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

So, when you say "Word of Wisdom violations are MINOR!", you mean that they won't get you excommunicated. Of course, neither will living off of welfare when you are able-bodied, using pornography, or cursing at your wife. So I suppose all those things are minor, too.

I disagree that the line for "minor sins" is whether you can get excommunicated for them. If that's how low you personally set the bar, then I guess you can do what you want. But don't expect us to accept your assessment. Some of us don't think that excommunication is the standard divider between minor and major.

That is exactly what I mean, for this and future reference if you ever have any questions on what I consider minor vs. major sins.  There is a pretty big difference, Major sins will automatically put you above a Bishop's ability to make any decisions if you are endowed or a High Priest or other situations and take you to the Stake Level, where as the more minor sins are things that can be handled more discreetly in the office typically.

We are not catholics, so the dividing line is perhaps not as clear, but when I say major and minor sins, those are the lines upon which I am utilizing.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

That is exactly what I mean, for this and future reference if you ever have any questions on what I consider minor vs. major sins.  There is a pretty big difference, Major sins will automatically put you above a Bishop's ability to make any decisions if you are endowed or a High Priest or other situations and take you to the Stake Level, where as the more minor sins are things that can be handled more discreetly in the office typically.

We are not catholics

Indeed we are not. Based on your rigid personal classification of types of sin, you obviously do not understand this principle very well.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm literally laughing at this.

Be nice. I can't count how many times you've said things that have made all of us laugh. And cry. And vomit a little. 

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

"You sin differently! You're bad!"

I'm literally laughing at this.

Out of curiosity, precisely how many people did know this hypothetical tobacco farmer?

I don't, but that's what was being discussed just prior to me bringing up the Marriotts.  Someone stated that this was an actual individual known by Traveler, but as it was apparent no one else really knew, everything was hypothetical.  Then I brought in the Marriotts, because, they are people that you can easily see what I've stated and decide for yourself.  It was to bring up the differences of our preconceived notions vs. what is reality in the LDS church.  I repeatedly brought them up because when we deal with the murky waters of what is right or wrong in regards to things not explicitly spoken about in the Word of Wisdom, then this is a good example of the exact type of scenario we are talking about.  That it goes even further than that, is something also plausible.  In that light, it was about the Marriotts in relation to what was going on in the thread at the time, using an example everyone and anyone could validate and bring in their reasons of why or what that was a violation of the Word of Wisdom or not, and how it would interact with the LDS system of membership rights.

[JohnsonJones]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Indeed we are not. Based on your rigid personal classification of types of sin, you obviously do not understand this principle very well.

It's not rigid, but there is a CLEAR dividing line.  I utilize major and minor, because most of the time people want to make the tiniest sins MAJOR sins.  As I stated, all sins take us from the Lord, but in regards to the church, there are sins that need more involvement regarding the LDS church than others.  When we make every sin sound so major that it will get one excommunicated, we do exactly what some of this thread was about at the beginning.  We ISOLATE those that need the church the most.

There are many sins out there that are NOT going to get people excommunicated that may need to be confessed to the Bishop.  However, because of how people talk about them or relate them, these members will NEVER come forward.  They will NEVER get the help they need.  When we equate smoking or drinking with behaviors that WILL get one excommunicated, this is EXACTLY the type of behavior we should condemn.  This is what drives people away.

This is why I use the major and minor equation on these boards, because too often, a sin that is NOT going to get someone excommunicated is written up by good intentioned members here as something that WILL get people excommunicated.  That is exactly the type of message we do not want to convey.  When I say major, then yes, that message is that they may stand a chance of getting excommunicated, that their fears of such may be exactly what they do fear.

When I use the word minor though, it normally allays a LOT of fear, not just on this board, but in real life.  For some reason, when I say...this is relatively a minor issue to someone in an interview, you can see them relax almost immediately.  It is because they have already judged themselves more harshly then they probably would be in real life.  They attribute that they will be excommunicated for what they have done in many instances, when this could not be further from the truth.  I use the word minor to allay fears so that people will be more willing to go and confess if they need to.

When we use the word Major sin, or anything in that like, we are equating it with the most serious types of offenses in many individuals minds.  For things that may not be blatant offenses, and may not be offenses at all, but also may be, I will also use the word minor.  It is minor because it does not appear to be something to excommunicate someone for, but that does not mean I'm going to automatically NOT classify it as a sin either.  In that way, it is not a MAJOR sin...aka...something that they need fear the church membership for, but something minor.

I choose to use the word Minor to allay fears from those who fear the worst.  It is something to use as a small comfort (though at times it may not be a comfort either), but as such, there are some things which I cannot shirk about.  I cannot say adultery is a minor sin...if they are involved with it, they rightly fear that the church could excommunicate them.  I cannot say differently.  But if someone is growing pot in their backyard in California...I'm not going to say they are in major trouble.  I may say they could be committing  a minor sin, and it is an issue for them to take up with their Local Leadership more than me.  I am not going to say they even have a chance of being excommunicated in that instance, and they should not fear discussing it if that is the issue.

Major and Minor are more of lines that I utilize to try to differentiate for those that truly are not in any risk overall of their eternal salvation, in general, at least as far as LDS church membership is done, so that they hopefully feel more free to come forward and get the help they need rather than avoiding it because they feel the punishment will be far worse than what it normally is.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

  I utilize major and minor, because most of the time people want to make the tiniest sins MAJOR sins. 

Which is to say that you think most of the time people want to have others excommunicated for non-ex-communicable acts. This is false. It is the falsehood upon which you seem to have your entire view built.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

When we equate smoking or drinking with behaviors that WILL get one excommunicated, this is EXACTLY the type of behavior we should condemn. 

I'm not sure you fully understand the meaning of the word "equate".

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

because too often, a sin that is NOT going to get someone excommunicated is written up by good intentioned members here as something that WILL get people excommunicated. 

Where and when?

[zil]

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The very FACT that you find it comparable to growing tobacco speaks VOLUMES about your thought process.

Holy Hopping Habaneros, Batman!  Please provide the exact post where TFP said this, cuz I'm pretty sure he didn't.

(What is it with people thinking mentioning two things in the same post automatically means the poster is equating the two!?)

PS: The tobacco farmer was not being discussed.  Those who didn't understand the point thought it was about the poor tobacco farmer. (Not poor because he lacks money but because the poor fellow has been so abused by this thread.)

PPS: Why on earth would anyone use another person (besides Jesus Christ, or God) as an example of what must be acceptable to do?

PPPS: The topic was never whether growing tobacco violated the WoW.

Ergo, your introduction of Marriott was intended to disprove a point no one was trying to make.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Holy Hopping Habaneros, Batman!  Please provide the exact post where TFP said this, cuz I'm pretty sure he didn't.

(What is it with people thinking mentioning two things in the same post automatically means the poster is equating the two!?)

Clearly I'll have the FBI busting down my door any moment. How can you be so blind to the obvious state of my criminal mind?

Edit: And judgmental mind. Don't forget. Judgmental and criminal.

Edited November 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Clearly I'll have the FBI busting down my door any moment. How can you be so blind to the obvious state of my criminal mind?

Well, I once looked into someone's mind - it was kinda grayish and spongy and icky, so I decided not to look into any more, so I guess I'm willfully blind...

[JohnsonJones]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which is to say that you think most of the time people want to have others excommunicated for non-ex-communicable acts. This is false. It is the falsehood upon which you seem to have your entire view built.

I'm not sure you fully understand the meaning of the word "equate".

Where and when?

Well, you've left that distinct impression several times in this thread when you write up things that are non-criminal and then write up very offensive crimes that hopefully you are not involved with or committing or actually trying to justify.

Trying to use the Marriotts as an example that you can justify human trafficking of the worst kinds...as if the two are even remotely connected is pretty bad, and if I haven't gotten it across to you yet...

I do NOT condone human trafficking nor your comments in that regards to justify it in any way, form, or means.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, you've left that distinct impression several times in this thread when you write up things that are non-criminal and then write up very offensive crimes that hopefully you are not involved with or committing or actually trying to justify.

Trying to use the Marriotts as an example that you can justify human trafficking of the worst kinds...as if the two are even remotely connected is pretty bad, and if I haven't gotten it across to you yet...

I do NOT condone human trafficking nor your comments in that regards to justify it in any way, form, or means.

No one is justifying human trafficking, and yes, everyone is against it. It's like saying you are against lung cancer. Never in my life have I met someone in favor of human trafficking, lung cancer, and giving meth to three year olds. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by MormonGator

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No one is justifying human trafficking. 

I hope not.  You should understand, I visit nations where what Folk Prophet stated is considered a crime.  It is serious enough that I cannot have even the remotest connection to something like what he stated, and as such, need to disavow any connection or condoning what he stated lest I be arrested in those nations if/when I go back to them.

Off topic - One reason why Americans (and Canadians even) should be happy for the degree of the freedom of Speech their nations allow.

Edited November 1, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I hope not.  You should understand, I visit nations where what Folk Prophet stated is considered a crime.  It is serious enough that I cannot have even the remotest connection to something like what he stated, and as such, need to disavow any connection or condoning what he stated lest I be arrested in those nations if/when I go back to them.

You (generic) don't deserve a gold star for being against human trafficking. It's like saying "I deserve credit for not beating my children and putting cigarettes out on my husbands tongue while I take pot shots at pedestrians crossing the street. Aren't I wonderful? "  

You don't get a Nobel Peace Prize for being against things that 99.9% of people are against. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

 very offensive crimes that hopefully you are not involved with or committing or actually trying to justify.

Dude...I just gotta tell ya.... weird, weird, weird reply.

Do you presume that any time anyone mentions anything offensive by way of academia and discussion that they might, therefore, be involved therein? 'Cause that's a really weird response.

According you to, if I ask you how you would feel if I had murdered someone as a rhetorical (please look up "rhetorical" as you seem to not understand it at all) device you assume I must be a murderer?

Weird.

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Trying to use the Marriotts as an example that you can justify human trafficking of the worst kinds...as if the two are even remotely connected is pretty bad, and if I haven't gotten it across to you yet...

Seriously...how can you not understand this? Ridiculous. Are you really that obtuse?

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do NOT condone human trafficking nor your comments in that regards to justify it in any way, form, or means.

The fact that you think by anything within our conversation that I am trying to condone anything tells me one of two things. You are either the daftest mentally incompetent person I've ever met or you are intentionally trying to smear me as some sort of argument tactic. As I struggle to believe anyone is that daft, I'm thinking it's the second. It falls pretty flat.

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The fact that you think by anything within our conversation that I am trying to condone anything tells me one of two things. You are either the daftest mentally incompetent person I've ever met or you are intentionally trying to smear me as some sort of argument tactic. As I struggle to believe anyone is that daft, I'm thinking it's the second. It falls pretty flat.

Two fold, firstly though, in some nations I visit, what you stated and how you stated it is considered a crime.  I cannot have any association to agreeing with you in that accord and must make it clear that not only do I disagree with what you stated, I do not condone it and condemn it in the harshest manner possible. 

If anything, this should make you happy you live in the US where you have freedom of speech. 

The second thing is, when you equate the Marriotts with that idea (and you did use them/him as a possible excuse of that), what in the world is your thought process that would even bring such a thing to mind.  That's pretty disgusting to even consider, much less bringing it up as casually as you did out of what appeared to me to be nowhere..  Where does this come from?  What type of mind does someone have in order to so casually consider something like that?

AS such, I must condemn that idea, and that I do NOT condone anything that you use to try to justify such actions as abhorrent as the human trafficking that you brought up.