How important is what we did in high school? Kavanaugh accusation


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/22/2018 at 8:13 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

This is true; but as a parent of boys who *will be* teenagers I plan to make sure they understand that it’s also possible for even a teenaged boy to live in such a way that even if someone made such an accusation—virtually no one would believe it.  Someone who has no reputation for getting puke-your-guts-out, blackout drunk (or who is frequently in the company of others who do); is going to have a harder time getting and keeping that sort of patina on their character.  :( 

Meanwhile, this article strikes me as a reasonably clear-eyed view of the current situation.  

The life of our master Christ tells otherwise (highlighted). If enough people (false witnesses with agenda) come forward even the most perfect of man/woman can have their reputation be put through the mire and come out dirty to the court of public opinion even though they are clean.

While at BYU (hmm..I believe similar to a time when you were at BYU), a professor explained a story of a young returned missionary who moved into a ward. Sadly rumors flew of this young man who was put through the mire. Many people believed the rumors although the young man was clean and was not dirty. They began to treat this young man according to the rumors. Fortunately, his actions allowed church authority to investigate and to clear and cause church discipline on others, but none the less the damage was done to this young man.

This is part of the sad times we live in. A boy/man's father and mother does indeed need to fear that possibility of being accused, and sadly our daughters may even be put through the ringer when they are being honest, but due to the illusion of good nature the young man turns the accusation back on her although he is guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Can you comment on where in the spectrum "preponderance-of-the-evidence" falls? Is that the line for taking a criminal accusation to trial? Is that the line for disqualifying a candidate from joining your law practice? The line for disqualifying a neighbor from watching your kids?

ETA: forgot to add context: https://www.scribd.com/document/389844826/Analysis-of-Christine-Ford-Allegations-and-Timeline-Rachel-Mitchell-Nominations-Investigative-Counsel

“Preponderance of evidence” just means “it’s more likely than not that it happened”; or “I’m at least 50% sure that it probably happened”.  That’s the standard you need to meet to win most civil lawsuits.  (Proving guilt in a criminal case, of course, requires showing “beyond a reasonable doubt”; which is a much higher standard than preponderance.  I think most prosecutors wouldn’t bother taking a case to trial if they didn’t sincerely believe they could meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.)

The applicable lines for hiring an employee or a babysitter, IMHO, are somewhat subjective.  I suppose, speaking for myself, that if someone told me that a potential hire was a predator, I would try to weigh a variety of factors as @The Folk Prophet suggested upthread.  Some of those might include known history, reputation, gravity of the accusation, risks that a predator might pose to my specific business given my business plan and current employees’ personalities, etc; and then ask myself:  is there a 25% possibility that the accusation might be true?  If so, I’d probably balk. But again, that’s just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The life of our master Christ tells otherwise (highlighted). If enough people (false witnesses with agenda) come forward even the most perfect of man/woman can have their reputation be put through the mire and come out dirty to the court of public opinion even though they are clean.

While at BYU (hmm..I believe similar to a time when you were at BYU), a professor explained a story of a young returned missionary who moved into a ward. Sadly rumors flew of this young man who was put through the mire. Many people believed the rumors although the young man was clean and was not dirty. They began to treat this young man according to the rumors. Fortunately, his actions allowed church authority to investigate and to clear and cause church discipline on others, but none the less the damage was done to this young man.

This is part of the sad times we live in. A boy/man's father and mother does indeed need to fear that possibility of being accused, and sadly our daughters may even be put through the ringer when they are being honest, but due to the illusion of good nature the young man turns the accusation back on her although he is guilty.

Respectfully disagree re the life of Christ.  He had an excellent reputation among the general populace right up to the very end of His life, as shown by his reception when He entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.  Mark is very clear that during Jesus’ trial—irregular and stacked as it was—the witnesses were all shown to be lying; and Jesus’ conviction ultimately came only because He himself affirmed during the trial that He was indeed the Christ (which *was*, after all, technically blasphemy for any other declarant).

Your example of the young man at BYU perhaps shows that I should amend my wording to state that “virtually no one *who knows him* would believe it”.  Certainly, coming into an unfamiliar group, one’s history and reputation isn’t going to be as effective a shield in the short run.  But in that case, solid investigation ultimately sorted out the fact from the fiction and those who were really interested in having the truth eventually got it.  

If Kavanaugh is innocent, careful investigation and scrutiny of his accusers will clear him.  The complication, of course, is that for political reasons the GOP doesn’t feel it has time to wait for the results of such an investigation.  

And frankly, whatever the truth of what happened with Ford or any other accuser; I’ll bet Kavanaugh would be sleeping a lot better tonight if he had never tasted alcohol and never gotten into the sorts of tomfoolery he chose to memorialize in his yearbook.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

“Preponderance of evidence” just means “it’s more likely than not that it happened”; or “I’m at least 50% sure that it probably happened”.  That’s the standard you need to meet to win most civil lawsuits.  (Proving guilt in a criminal case, of course, requires showing “beyond a reasonable doubt”; which is a much higher standard than preponderance.  I think most prosecutors wouldn’t bother taking a case to trial if they didn’t sincerely believe they could meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.)

The applicable lines for hiring an employee or a babysitter, IMHO, are somewhat subjective.  I suppose, speaking for myself, that if someone told me that a potential hire was a predator, I would try to weigh a variety of factors as @The Folk Prophet suggested upthread.  Some of those might include known history, reputation, gravity of the accusation, risks that a predator might pose to my specific business given my business plan and current employees’ personalities, etc; and then ask myself:  is there a 25% possibility that the accusation might be true?  If so, I’d probably balk. But again, that’s just me.

Preponderance of the evidence = 51% likely it happened (civil), beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal) = 90% likely it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

“Preponderance of evidence” just means “it’s more likely than not that it happened”; or “I’m at least 50% sure that it probably happened”.  That’s the standard you need to meet to win most civil lawsuits.  (Proving guilt in a criminal case, of course, requires showing “beyond a reasonable doubt”; which is a much higher standard than preponderance.  I think most prosecutors wouldn’t bother taking a case to trial if they didn’t sincerely believe they could meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.)

The applicable lines for hiring an employee or a babysitter, IMHO, are somewhat subjective.  I suppose, speaking for myself, that if someone told me that a potential hire was a predator, I would try to weigh a variety of factors as @The Folk Prophet suggested upthread.  Some of those might include known history, reputation, gravity of the accusation, risks that a predator might pose to my specific business given my business plan and current employees’ personalities, etc; and then ask myself:  is there a 25% possibility that the accusation might be true?  If so, I’d probably balk. But again, that’s just me.

So when you start weighing matters with Kavanaugh it becomes interesting very quickly, I believe. There is, I think, a possibility that the accusation might be true -- not sure if it's 25% or not...but....

When you throw into the mix "risk that hiring [Kavanaugh] might pose to...specific business given...current employees, etc..." that's when things get really interesting. Putting Kavanaugh in as a supreme court judge is highly risky -- guilty or not. Not putting Kavanaugh in as a supreme court judge is highly risky -- guilty or not. This is a high risk world and we're walking the line of the destruction of the country.

It's nasty politics any way you cut it. But of this much I feel quite certain: if somehow the democrats gain power in the house, senate, SC, and presidency, we're doomed. Of course I expect this to happen sooner or later. I'd prefer later.

This Kavanaugh situation may be the key to delaying this horror show. It may be the key to causing this horror show.

And, oh yes, it will be a horror show. They'll take away our guns, our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, etc. And what do we think will happen then? Will we (the collective right) stand idly by and allow such?

I suspect we're not so far off from one side or the other pushing beyond what the other will tolerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If Kavanaugh is innocent, careful investigation and scrutiny of his accusers will clear him.

Of sexual whatever...maybe. But it will also find every other mistake and weakness he's ever had and magnify it ten-fold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And frankly, whatever the truth of what happened with Ford or any other accuser; I’ll bet Kavanaugh would be sleeping a lot better tonight if he had never tasted alcohol and never gotten into the sorts of tomfoolery he chose to memorialize in his yearbook.

Yep. I'll bet Kavanaugh wishes he were perfect like Christ was. After all, that is the only way some would be satisfied he qualifies to serve on the SC...except of course the democrats, who would be the one's screaming for the crucifixion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yep. I'll bet Kavanaugh wishes he were perfect like Christ was. After all, that is the only way some would be satisfied he qualifies to serve on the SC...except of course the democrats, who would be the one's screaming for the crucifixion.

Fair point, but one doesn’t have to be “perfect like Christ was” to avoid drinking in high school and to avoid submitting for publication a statement including all kinds of dodgy reference to your high school antics.  These are unforced errors.

We (or at least, conservativism) seems to be drifting into an acknowledgment that frat boy antics are both acceptable and expect-able (is that a word?), if not unavoidable, for young men of a certain age.  I find that deeply unfortunate.  We’ve been hearing a lot of hand-wringing lately about the possibility that our sons may find themselves on the wrong end of a spurious accusation of sexual misconduct; but I think this moral panic will blow over in the next 5 years—it’s just too exhausting to live under (think “the boy who cried wolf”); and eventually there will be a backlash and the problem will solve itself.  

Frankly I think the more clear and present danger for my sons specifically is that they will be lulled into complacency about the prospect of moral mediocrity.  Obviously the primary defenses to that lie in the home and the Church; but  I had looked to conservativism to at least uphold some semblance of morality in the civic sphere.  Sadly, increasingly large subsets of conservativism seem to be committed to out-libertining the libertines.  

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Frankly I think the more clear and present danger for my sons specifically is that they will be lulled into complacency about the prospect of moral mediocrity.  Obviously the primary defenses to that lie in the home and the Church; but  I had looked to conservativism to at least uphold some semblance of morality in the civic sphere.  Sadly, increasingly large subsets of conservativism seem to be committed to out-libertining the libertines.  

This is silly.  Name a single right-winger who says - "getting drunk is just fine, peeps!  Let's go have a drunk parade!".   Even Bush - the drunkard and cocaine user himself - do not promote such actions as virtuous.  Rather, we all accept that Bush drinking and cocaine use was in his past and he has since matured out of that phase to achieve great things.

It is hypocrisy that people of faith can wipe out a lifetime of stellar achievement because of a phase of moral weakness, even having to go back 35 years to find one, to say - nah, there's gotta be somebody better.  Who?  Name one who hasn't been through moral weakness in their lifetime, especially in their teen years, and has shown impeccable achievements in consitutionalist judgments at the high courts?  And for this to come from people of faith who promote the power of repentance and the "our souls are born to change into Godliness" as opposed to "our souls are born Godly" - it's hypocricy.  Yesterday it was sexual assault, today it is getting drunk, tomorrow it's gonna be what - having pre-marital sex with a girlfriend?  Because these are all immoral, you know?  How high a bar do you want to put it?

Now, if you're going to say - this man of faith said his drinking days are glorious and everybody should do it, in the same manner that the left-wing celebrate their libertine lifestyles - then your paragraph would hold water. 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Fair point, but one doesn’t have to be “perfect like Christ was” to avoid drinking in high school and to avoid submitting for publication a statement including all kinds of dodgy reference to your high school antics.  These are unforced errors.

Why are they errors?

Outside of LDS-dom why is "drinking" something that disqualifies anyone from anything -- unless they're currently involved in inebriation in a way that effects their lives, and/or likely to be so? And why should high-school antics really have anything to do with it? Highschool kids are dumb and do dumb things because they're kids.

I would hate to think that my behavior when I was 16 was to be scrutinized and used as the end-all evidence of who I was. And I was one of the "good" kids. I didn't drink or sleep around or even swear. But I "played hooky" a lot, broke into the school all the times (fun and games type stuff), snuck out of my house at night to run around the neighborhood with my friends, lit a LOT of fires with gasoline we stole from the lawnmower, got into rock and BB-gun wars, and all sorts of stupid, stupid, stupid kid's stuff.

And yet non of that has anything to do with who I am now. I don't "play hooky" from work --- EVER. I don't break into places --- EVER. I don't sneak out of my house at night --- EVER. I don't light fires (well...unless BBQing or camping -- and then never with gasoline) --- EVER. I don't get into rock wars for fun -- EVER.

Nor would I ever do any of these sorts of things. Nor would I allow my children to do these sorts of things.

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We (or at least, conservativism) seems to be drifting into an acknowledgment that frat boy antics are both acceptable and expect-able (is that a word?), if not unavoidable, for young men of a certain age.  

No. They are not acceptable. And if I caught my children doing so, they would be in dutch.

But I do not believe that my brother, for example, who skinny dipped in the canal and threw water melons from flying cars with his friends in high school should now, having grown up and not being that way or thinking that way any longer, should be judged as "that type of person" based on stupid kid's stuff he did 20 years ago.

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think this moral panic will blow over in the next 5 years—it’s just too exhausting to live under (think “the boy who cried wolf”); and eventually there will be a backlash and the problem will solve itself.  

I hope so.

27 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

rankly I think the more clear and present danger for my sons specifically is that they will be lulled into complacency about the prospect of moral mediocrity.  Obviously the primary defenses to that lie in the home and the Church; but  I had looked to conservativism to at least uphold some semblance of morality in the civic sphere.

I think any reasonable parent, re: Kavanaugh, would point out to their child in the strongest terms possible: "See what happens when you do dumb stuff in high school? It might come back to bite you!"

I'll grant, we're quickly losing numbers of "reasonable" parents in the world and "reasonable" takes a flying leap into the nearest lake in most given situations. But I am certainly not arguing that we should support high school antics as okay. That is different than understanding that what a person was 20-30 years ago when they were a dumb kid may not have much to do with the person they've become -- particularly professionally.

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sadly, increasingly large subsets of conservativism seem to be committed to out-libertining the libertines.

If I come across that way you're misreading me I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

[1] This is silly.  Name a single right-winger who says - "getting drunk is just fine, peeps!  Let's go have a drunk parade!".   Even Bush - the drunkard and cocaine user himself - do not promote such actions as virtuous.  Rather, we all accept that Bush drinking and cocaine use was in his past and he has since matured out of that phase to achieve great things.

[2] It is hypocrisy that people of faith can wipe out a lifetime of stellar achievement because of a phase of moral weakness, even having to go back 35 years to find one, to say - nah, there's gotta be somebody better.  Who?  Name one who hasn't been through moral weakness in their lifetime? 

[3] Now, if you're going to say - this man of faith said his drinking days are glorious and everybody should do it - then your paragraph would hold water.

1.  You’re sort of bolstering my point here, by normalizing Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior and passing it off as a typical juvenile moral weakness.  Normalization is a major step on the road to acceptance—we saw the left use the same tactics in, inter alia, the sexual revolution. 

And it’s of a piece with several other issues the GOP has grappled with over the past two or three years as increasingly vocal subsets of the party have justified, not just BK’s alleged drinking, but his alleged assault on Ford; justified Roy Moore’s creepiness, made excuses for P-gate, and praised candidates’ rank dishonesties as the tactics of a “master persuader”.  

2.  I would also suggest that you’re taking your eye off the ball here.  The priority isn’t to give Kavanaugh whatever we think his “just desserts” ought to be for a life well-lived (or not).  The priority is to get a solid constitutionalist on SCOTUS—ideally one who hasn’t raped anyone, hasn’t tried to rape anyone, and (if it’s not asking too much) didn’t spend their teenaged years engaging in repeated violations of state law.  (I don’t know whether Kavanaugh fits that bill or not; but there are others who do, and that’s the overarching point vis a vis our overall priority.) 

3.  To be clear (and maybe I haven’t been articulate on this point so far), I’m not convinced that underaged drinking per se disqualifies BK from SCOTUS.  (I don’t love it, but it’s not a deal-killer.)  It does, however, make his confirmation harder than it needs to be; and that has strategic implications for whether the GOP wants to stick with him or not.  

And I do find it problematic when BK’s personality cult goes overboard with defenses like “but really, who hasn’t done that at some point?”

Whether it’s drinking, or attempted rape—You know who hasn’t done that?  Me.

You know who hasn’t done that?  My brother.

You know who (I believe, based on your glowing statements elsewhere) hasn’t done that?  Your sons. 

This ain’t the moon I’m asking for.  I expect decency, not divinity.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Whether it’s drinking, or attempted rape—You know who hasn’t done that?  Me.

Yet, certainly, there are things you HAVE done, that were you in the hot seat, you would not find fair to have brought up against you as if that defined your ability to do the job as it should be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Your example of the young man at BYU perhaps shows that I should amend my wording to state that “virtually no one *who knows him* would believe it”.  Certainly, coming into an unfamiliar group, one’s history and reputation isn’t going to be as effective a shield in the short run.  But in that case, solid investigation ultimately sorted out the fact from the fiction and those who were really interested in having the truth eventually got it. 

Just another example, Joseph in Egypt and Potiphar's wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Just another example, Joseph in Egypt and Potiphar's wife.

Joseph was a slave.

But I will add another corollary:  when one finds oneself in a state of servitude to or occupation by a foreign power, all bets are off; and one then might as well be as lecherous a lush as one wishes. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Joseph was a slave.

Are you suggesting that if he hadn't been, that the Pharaoh -- king/god/ruler of the land wouldn't or couldn't have thrown him in jail for the accusation? 

Edit: I understand it was Potipher who had Joseph thrown in jail...but through the power he had given him of the Pharaoh.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Are you suggesting that if he hadn't been, that the Pharaoh -- king/god/ruler of the land wouldn't or couldn't have thrown him in jail for the accusation? 

Edit: I understand it was Potipher who had Joseph thrown in jail...but through the power he had given him of the Pharaoh.

No; I’m merely conceding that as a slave and a member of an oppressed minority, a lifetime of good behavior may not immediately inoculate a person from the whims of a capricious ruler.

And even then . . . in Joseph’s case, while this is all speculative, we may ask why Potiphar had Joseph imprisoned rather than outright killed; and we may ask why Pharoah would have released Joseph due to his aptitude at what could (for all Pharoah knew) easily have been a couple or of parlor tricks, if he truly believed Joseph had tried to rape the wife of one of his high officials.  

About 25 years ago TNT made a sort of drama-biopic of Joseph’s life.  There was, of course, a lot of non-scriptural interpolation; but one thing that’s always stuck out to me is how they made Potiphar something of an ally to Joseph who was bound to defend his wife’s honor in public but who continued to advise and encourage Joseph even in prison.  There’s a remarkable scene in that film where Potiphar’s wife angrily confronts Potiphar wanting to know why he isn’t having Joseph summarily executed; and Potiphar merely sighs, looks her in the eyes, and quietly says “I know you, wife . . . I know you.”

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yep. I'll bet Kavanaugh wishes he were perfect like Christ was. After all, that is the only way some would be satisfied he qualifies to serve on the SC...except of course the democrats, who would be the one's screaming for the crucifixion.

You and I know that when he was brought to trial, his accusers found witnesses to find fault with him regardless of his innocence or perfection.

Kavanaugh is nothing like that, but even if he were, if one was determined to tarnish his reputation, with how much credibility we give someone with no evidence and even no memory other than a basic claim he did something with no location, time, place, or anything else to place it at...well...I imagine even the Lord would or could be in a similar situation.

Never underestimate the Gadiantons (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't sneak out of my house at night --- EVER.

This brings up an interesting point, though very off topic. 

What reason would you have, as an adult (who I assume own your own house) have to sneak out of your house at night these days?

21 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is silly.  Name a single right-winger who says - "getting drunk is just fine, peeps!  Let's go have a drunk parade!".   Even Bush - the drunkard and cocaine user himself - do not promote such actions as virtuous.  Rather, we all accept that Bush drinking and cocaine use was in his past and he has since matured out of that phase to achieve great things.

It is hypocrisy that people of faith can wipe out a lifetime of stellar achievement because of a phase of moral weakness, even having to go back 35 years to find one, to say - nah, there's gotta be somebody better.  Who?  Name one who hasn't been through moral weakness in their lifetime, especially in their teen years, and has shown impeccable achievements in consitutionalist judgments at the high courts?  And for this to come from people of faith who promote the power of repentance and the "our souls are born to change into Godliness" as opposed to "our souls are born Godly" - it's hypocricy.  Yesterday it was sexual assault, today it is getting drunk, tomorrow it's gonna be what - having pre-marital sex with a girlfriend?  Because these are all immoral, you know?  How high a bar do you want to put it?

Now, if you're going to say - this man of faith said his drinking days are glorious and everybody should do it, in the same manner that the left-wing celebrate their libertine lifestyles - then your paragraph would hold water. 

Personally, I'd prefer that we have an exceptionally high bar for our leaders.  If we could have people like Captain Moroni or Nephi or Mosiah we could hope for greatness.

It may be that we are now referring to those who were like Alma the Younger and the Sons of Mosiah, who were great men, but I don't think Kavanaugh really is one of those types (but who knows, maybe).

I would prefer that we didn't have those who partied hard in High School and were of a serious mind and moral attitude.  I KNOW MANY young men, even today, that have shown exceptional moral strength and spiritual aptitude.  They do not have a history of drinking or partying in High School.  Why not have these sorts of young men who become grown and responsible men be our leaders?

That said, I find it interesting how much this is used against Republicans.  It is a focus of the media.  What is alarming is that when you dig into the past history of many of the Democrats in Congress you will find much dirtier and immoral actions than anything they've accused Kavanaugh of.  It is interesting that the press and media lets them get away with far worse without even a whisper at times. 

In some ways your argument holds FAR more truth when holding up a Democratic leader up for inspection than many others.  At the same time, Republicans are not without their own shame, but it is interesting how often they have it pointed out than the Democrats.

I've heard that part of this is that more of the Evangelical Christians and others who have high moral standards are part of the Republican Party (I am not a member of the Republican party, and I think a prime example that there ARE Democrats who can have morals as well), and so when accusations come up like this they are more likely to sabotage their own candidates.  This same tactic does not work as well against Democrats because far less of them care about things such as this and will vote for the person charged anyways.

I still think there are many Moral Democrats (and Republicans), but it is an interesting dynamic of how the Politics in the US seem to work today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

This brings up an interesting point, though very off topic. 

What reason would you have, as an adult (who I assume own your own house) have to sneak out of your house at night these days?

Personally, I'd prefer that we have an exceptionally high bar for our leaders.  If we could have people like Captain Moroni or Nephi or Mosiah we could hope for greatness.

It may be that we are now referring to those who were like Alma the Younger and the Sons of Mosiah, who were great men, but I don't think Kavanaugh really is one of those types (but who knows, maybe).

Okay, pop quiz... WHY do you think Kavanaugh is not one of "those types"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

What reason would you have, as an adult (who I assume own your own house) have to sneak out of your house at night these days? 

Hmm.  This sounds fun.  Top ten reasons for an adult to sneak out of their own house at night:

10. The cops are at the other door.

9. Escape the children (without them following, of course).

8. Run away from home to join the circus.

7. Zombies.

6. You're cultivating the whole "hermit" image, but have to get groceries some time.

5. You don't want to get everyone else a milkshake (midnight snack) too.

4. You need to get rid of that box in the garage before one of the kids discovers where Fluffy really went.

3.

2.

1.

...I may need some help finishing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

What reason would you have, as an adult (who I assume own your own house) have to sneak out of your house at night these days?

Obviously your question is valid and I had the same thought, but the series of "what I did as a kid that I don't do now" wouldn't have been complete without including this. ;) I suppose one could sneak out to cheat on the wife or some such. Maybe murder people as a closet serial killer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Personally, I'd prefer that we have an exceptionally high bar for our leaders.  If we could have people like Captain Moroni or Nephi or Mosiah we could hope for greatness.

With this, I agree. However -- in the current world we live in we often really end up hoping for the lesser of the evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share