When Did Confusion Become a Virtue?

[unixknight]

I think the fatal flaw in our system of Government is this:

A certain level of corruption was assumed when the Constitution was drafted.  The idea was that enlightened self-interest would keep a representative on track even if his own personal motives were not so good.  That can work, but it assumes that people with voting power would remain informed, and would vote based on the issues.  When the voting population is ignorant (either through a lack of education or media disinformation, the system will fail.)  

(Side Note:  Anyone else see a conflict of interest there, in having the Government be the entity that decides what "education" looks like?)

Believe it or not, I support the idea of restricting voting rights in a manner similar to Heinlein's ideas in Starship Troopers.  (The book, not necessarily the film.)  This is why I think it was a mistake to widen voting rights to include non-land owners.

WAIT!  Hear me out.

A land owner, or someone who has demonstrated a willingness to perform service for the community, is someone who has roots in the community, awareness of the issues, and a vested interest in promoting the common welfare.  If the only qualification to vote is a pulse for 18 years, then people's motives and priorities can be skewered.  They vote their own self interest even if it harms the community.  They'll vote for a baloney sandwich if someone's willing to offer them one and a bus ride to the polling place.  By giving power to people with -zero- education or incentive to use it to benefit the community, you effectively defeat the system.  You get chaos.

Look around.  Am I wrong?

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Because Romney keeps his promises (marriage covenant) even when society does not think it is important.

Obama didn't cheat on his wife either.  I guess by that standard he's worthy of a vote too.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Obama didn't cheat on his wife either.  I guess by that standard he's worthy of a vote too.

He lied about other things.

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

He lied about other things.

And Romney never lied?

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Because Romney keeps his promises (marriage covenant) even when society does not think it is important.

 

The Traveler

Okay, I get it now.

A person who supports Antifa in their violent suppression of free speech, supports robbing justice (illegal immigration) in the name of mercy, supports proliferation of war (Syria) should be President because he has a good marriage.

This reminds me of my mother-in-law who has no problem letting little kids watch gruesome violent movies but the minute somebody french kisses another... Ohhh noooo!!!  That's a terrible movie, we can't have the kids watching that!  

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I get it now.

A person who supports Antifa in their violent suppression of free speech, supports robbing justice (illegal immigration) in the name of mercy, supports proliferation of war (Syria) should be President because he has a good marriage.

And don't forget the flipfloppery.  That man will say whatever it takes to get elected.

[Anddenex]

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay then.  So why would somebody with an IQ above room temperature think Romney should be President but Trump shouldn't?

Well, I assume from this statement that Romney doesn't have an IQ above room temperature because I am pretty sure Romney wasn't for Trump, but could be wrong.

[unixknight]

Just now, Anddenex said:

Well, I assume from this statement that Romney doesn't have an IQ above room temperature because I am pretty sure Romney wasn't for Trump, but could be wrong.

He was when he was running for Senate.  Now that he's been elected, he isn't.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well, I assume from this statement that Romney doesn't have an IQ above room temperature because I am pretty sure Romney wasn't for Trump, but could be wrong.

Romney's IQ flipflops depending on what position he is campaigning for.  But Traveler said that those who have IQ above room temperature knows Trump should not be president.  So, I guess Romney's IQ is genius level.

[Traveler]

I would make something clear to this forum - I consider the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman the greatest covenant and most sacred notion critical to human civilization possible.  I cannot think of anything more important.  I believe that of all things this is the single most important and critical notion to be held sacred by society.  It would seem to me that there are some that would put politics first - I am sorry but my thinking cannot make that leap of faith.

It seems to me that many would marginalize the sacredness and importance of marriage.  I do understand that sins can be committed and should be forgiven (especially for those that repent) but I would reference 121 section of the D&C about unrighteous dominion where we are specifically warned of those that "cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition" that "the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the L-rd is grieved".  It is one thing to error but it is another to deliberately hide and cover one's deeds which is the foundation of secret societies - which is the greatest threat to our liberty, law and government.

In our last Presidential election; both of the predominant political parties of this nation put forth candidates that trampled the sacredness of marriage and lied to cover sins of adultery.  I will not condone such things - especially for the love of corrupt party politics.  I am sorry that this sacred belief and respect for marriage so offends some of this forum.  Perhaps the fault is mine in not expressing my concerns better.

And I would say one more thing and this is about Romney.  I am not sure I would campaign or tout him for president despite that I once voted for him.  But I will say this - I have a covenant that I believe sacred that I will not speak evil of the L-rd's anointed and I do know that Romney is one of the L-rd's anointed.  I am aware his political thinking is not as in line with my own thinking as I would hope for such - but I would not color that difference as evil.

Again - I do not understand some things that come from discussing politics (and sometimes things concerning discussions of religious doctrine) but I will express that to my understanding - that Trump lacks the humility (among other things) of a leader I will support.  Though I can support much of his policies - I do not support the person beyond the notion of my covenant to be subject to our president - therefore since he was elected according to our law - I respect the law and believe that the efforts to remove him are as evil and more so than his narcissistic pride.

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am sorry that this sacred belief and respect for marriage so offends some of this forum.  

That's laying it on a bit thick, brother.

Do you really equate simply having a different approach with being offended? 

Edited February 28, 2019 by unixknight

[Traveler]

46 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's laying it on a bit thick, brother.

Do you really equate simply having a different approach with being offended? 

 

I have explained that I do not believe Trump is the caliber of person that I think the president of the United States should be held to.  I am also trying to explain why I have respect for marriage, why it is so important to me and why I think it should be for society as well.  I also put this morality before politics.  I do understand some appreciate Trump - I do not and have stated the reasons why.  And for the record - I do believe the President and anyone else should be held to a higher standard that those not running for office.  

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have explained that I do not believe Trump is the caliber of person that I think the president of the United States should be held to.  I am also trying to explain why I have respect for marriage, why it is so important to me and why I think it should be for society as well.  I also put this morality before politics.  I do understand some appreciate Trump - I do not and have stated the reasons why.  And for the record - I do believe the President and anyone else should be held to a higher standard that those not running for office.  

That doesn't answer my question.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would make something clear to this forum - I consider the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman the greatest covenant and most sacred notion critical to human civilization possible.  I cannot think of anything more important.  I believe that of all things this is the single most important and critical notion to be held sacred by society.  It would seem to me that there are some that would put politics first - I am sorry but my thinking cannot make that leap of faith.

It seems to me that many would marginalize the sacredness and importance of marriage.  I do understand that sins can be committed and should be forgiven (especially for those that repent) but I would reference 121 section of the D&C about unrighteous dominion where we are specifically warned of those that "cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition" that "the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the L-rd is grieved".  It is one thing to error but it is another to deliberately hide and cover one's deeds which is the foundation of secret societies - which is the greatest threat to our liberty, law and government.

In our last Presidential election; both of the predominant political parties of this nation put forth candidates that trampled the sacredness of marriage and lied to cover sins of adultery.  I will not condone such things - especially for the love of corrupt party politics.  I am sorry that this sacred belief and respect for marriage so offends some of this forum.  Perhaps the fault is mine in not expressing my concerns better.

And I would say one more thing and this is about Romney.  I am not sure I would campaign or tout him for president despite that I once voted for him.  But I will say this - I have a covenant that I believe sacred that I will not speak evil of the L-rd's anointed and I do know that Romney is one of the L-rd's anointed.  I am aware his political thinking is not as in line with my own thinking as I would hope for such - but I would not color that difference as evil.

Again - I do not understand some things that come from discussing politics (and sometimes things concerning discussions of religious doctrine) but I will express that to my understanding - that Trump lacks the humility (among other things) of a leader I will support.  Though I can support much of his policies - I do not support the person beyond the notion of my covenant to be subject to our president - therefore since he was elected according to our law - I respect the law and believe that the efforts to remove him are as evil and more so than his narcissistic pride.

 

The Traveler

Traveler,  this is the difference between you and me. I do not want government legislating marriage.  I want government out of it as much as possible.

That said, if Trump would campaign on the platform that cheating on your wife is a good thing and that husbands should do so then I will agree with you that he should not be President.

Newt Gingrich is the person I supported in 2012.  Romney beat him by running full-on press negative ads about Gingrich serving his wife divorce papers while lying in a hospital bed dying of cancer and the scandal of extramarital affairs.  And although Gingrich has been plagued with 2 previously failed marriages a lot of the ads were sensational, exaggerated, and even lies (he didn't serve his wife divorce papers while dying in the hospital).  Romney did that.  Paid a lot of money for the ads too.  The MSM piled on and the stories became viral.  Gingrich finally silenced Romney on the matter when at a debate right before Super Tuesday, the very first question that was asked of Gingrich was about his extramarital affairs.  This is Gingrich's reply:  

“I think the destructive vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. I’m appalled you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.  Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things.  To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine." 

And that's the exact same thing I think when people take someone's personal struggle and define the entirety of a person's talents by it.  Gingrich's achievements in reigning in the Clinton Administration and reigning in Government spending is remarkable yet that amounts to ZERO value as he is not known for that.  He is known for having failed in marriage even as he is currently living a successful one.  As it stands, Gingrich would be a much better President than Romney would be.

Edited February 28, 2019 by anatess2

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

That doesn't answer my question.

I will try to answer what I think your question was.  I believe that those that take a different approach to the marriage (as as serious covenant that should be respected) as an offence before G-d and humanity.  Not just those that commit adultery but those that justify the commission of adultery - especially for politics.   If I have not answered the question - please ask it aging with more specific details.

Thanks

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I will try to answer what I think your question was.  I believe that those that take a different approach to the marriage (as as serious covenant that should be respected) as an offence before G-d and humanity.  Not just those that commit adultery but those that justify the commission of adultery - especially for politics.   If I have not answered the question - please ask it aging with more specific details.

I didn't ask for your views on marriage.  

I asked "Do you really equate simply having a different approach with being offended?"  In response to your remark "I am sorry that this sacred belief and respect for marriage so offends some of this forum."

In other words, what makes you think people have been offended by respect for marriage?

[Vort]

On 2/21/2019 at 9:46 AM, NeuroTypical said:

(I'm currently asking stuff like "I don't get it.  If y'all really think gender is a fluid or a spectrum, then why are y'all so entrenched in the concept of toxic masculinity?"  FYI, the answer seems to be "We gotta use the words culture uses, so we pretend it matters so we can educate people".)

Omni 17: "And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them."

Our language is being intentionally corrupted. The unspoken but obvious reason for this is to hinder communication, not to aid it. Fuzzy speaking promotes fuzzy thinking, and once people have lost the ability to think clearly, you can foist whatever foolishness or absurdity on them that you want. Gender as a social construct? Patriarchy as an evil? Homosexual relations as a virtue? Anything is possible when you have released your words from the burden of meaning.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Vort

[unixknight]

28 minutes ago, Vort said:

Our language is being intentionally corrupted. The unspoken but obvious reason for this is to hinder communication, not to aid it. Fuzzy speaking promotes fuzzy thinking, and once people have lost the ability to think clearly, you can foist whatever foolishness or absurdity on them that you want. Gender as a social construct? Patriarchy as an evil? Homosexual relations as a virtue? Anything is possible when you have released your words from the burden of meaning.

A phenomenon which also lies at he heart of Newspeak in George Orwell's 1984.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, unixknight said:

I didn't ask for your views on marriage.  

I asked "Do you really equate simply having a different approach with being offended?"  In response to your remark "I am sorry that this sacred belief and respect for marriage so offends some of this forum."

In other words, what makes you think people have been offended by respect for marriage?

I will attempt to respond as I understand.   The principle of taking a different approach to something is not such a evil thing as it is what principle is being approached differently.  It may be very interesting for someone to approach matter, time and the constant speed of light with a different approach as Einstein did as a young student of science.  But it is a whole different matter to consider the fanticide of newborn infants with the different approach for political expediency and advantage. 

I have given a clear and definite opinion that I do not believe a liberated and free people (such as the Latter-day Saints) that love G-d by covenant, could or should seek political leaders intent on the disrespect of the sacred covenant of marriage between a man and woman.  And Yes, I am surprised that some on this forum, take this opinion concerning marriage and political leadership as what appears as an offence; that ought to be challenged and changed for some political expediency.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I will attempt to respond as I understand.   The principle of taking a different approach to something is not such a evil thing as it is what principle is being approached differently.  It may be very interesting for someone to approach matter, time and the constant speed of light with a different approach as Einstein did as a young student of science.  But it is a whole different matter to consider the fanticide of newborn infants with the different approach for political expediency and advantage. 

I have given a clear and definite opinion that I do not believe a liberated and free people (such as the Latter-day Saints) that love G-d by covenant, could or should seek political leaders intent on the disrespect of the sacred covenant of marriage between a man and woman.  And Yes, I am surprised that some on this forum, take this opinion concerning marriage and political leadership as what appears as an offence; that ought to be challenged and changed for some political expediency.

 

The Traveler

What makes you think that Trump or Gingrich, for that matter, are INTENT on the disrespect of the sacred covenant of marriage?

It's one thing to talk about somebody's FAILURE in marriage but to say that one is INTENT on disprecting marriage?  That's entirely different.  It's the difference between somebody who got married, failed, and ended up in divorce (which, even the LDS Church is littered with, including temple recommend holders) and somebody who promotes destruction of marriages.

It is like somebody who will not accept the apostleship of Paul because he used to round up Christians.  Or the wisdom of the forefathers because they owned slaves.

Edited March 1, 2019 by anatess2

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What makes you think that Trump or Gingrich, for that matter, are INTENT on the disrespect of the sacred covenant of marriage?

It's one thing to talk about somebody's FAILURE in marriage but to say that one is INTENT on disprecting marriage?  That's entirely different.  It's the difference between somebody who got married, failed, and ended up in divorce (which, even the LDS Church is littered with, including temple recommend holders) and somebody who promotes destruction of marriages.

It is like somebody who will not accept the apostleship of Paul because he used to round up Christians.  Or the wisdom of the forefathers because they owned slaves.

Gingrich?  Where have I said anything about Gingrich?  I am talking about Trump that committed adultery and used his lawyer to hide hush payments during his initial campaign for president.

 

The Traveler 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Gingrich?  Where have I said anything about Gingrich?  I am talking about Trump that committed adultery and used his lawyer to hide hush payments during his initial campaign for president.

 

The Traveler 

I mentioned Gingrich.  It was quite an important post.  I even bolded the quote from Gingrich.  So you're saying Gingrich is fit to be President?  What about Reagan?  You think Reagan is fit to be President?

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by anatess2

[unixknight]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I will attempt to respond as I understand.   The principle of taking a different approach to something is not such a evil thing as it is what principle is being approached differently.  It may be very interesting for someone to approach matter, time and the constant speed of light with a different approach as Einstein did as a young student of science.  But it is a whole different matter to consider the fanticide of newborn infants with the different approach for political expediency and advantage. 

I have given a clear and definite opinion that I do not believe a liberated and free people (such as the Latter-day Saints) that love G-d by covenant, could or should seek political leaders intent on the disrespect of the sacred covenant of marriage between a man and woman.  And Yes, I am surprised that some on this forum, take this opinion concerning marriage and political leadership as what appears as an offence; that ought to be challenged and changed for some political expediency.

For someone who takes such a dim view of politicians, you are quite accomplished at answering like one.  It was a pretty simple question.

No, we aren't offended by your views on marriage, since we share them.  The fact that we're willing to be flexible on that point in a case like this is a result of a more pragmatic view.  You're certainly free to disagree, and nobody is offended that you do.  It isn't clear to me what gave you that impression, but hopefully it's all cleared up now.

Now, I'd appreciate you addressing questions that both @anatess2 and I have posed regarding you remark about people who support President Trump having an IQ lower than room temperature.  That was a sweeping statement that applies to many of us, and to people close to us.  We've both given you ample opportunity to clarify/retract/whatever that statement but to no avail. 

Care to do so now?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I mentioned Gingrich.  It was quite an important post.  I even bolded the quote from Gingrich.  So you're saying Gingrich is fit to be President?  What about Reagan?  You think Reagan is fit to be President?

 

I do not believe that a person that will not respect and be honest concerning the covenant of marriage is fit to be a trusted leader of a nation.  Do I understand that this is disturbing to you and that you think such behavior is an excellent and valued quality for a leader of nations?

 

The Traveler