It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, that was one of the "holes" I was thinking about.

Hearsay evidence is actually allowed in many jurisdictions provided that it is a person's first hand account of what they actually heard someone say. 

FWIW, under courtroom rules there are a host of exceptions to the prohibition on hearsay (I believe federal rules of evidence 803 and 804 govern federal courts); and law school “evidence” classes spend about a month on all of it, and even then lawyers (including me!) and judges routinely get it wrong.

But, the notion that we would accept hearsay while deliberately excluding direct evidence—that is mind-boggling.  

Edited July 1, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But, the notion that we would accept hearsay while deliberately excluding direct evidence—that is mind-boggling.  

What direct evidence you refer to?

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, Suzie said:

In my view, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Trump did it. The other statement about Trump knowing fully well that the mob was armed and STILL didn't think it was a problem because "they aren't here to hurt ME" is what I found the most disturbing.

Indeed; and as you hint in your post, a lot of the meaning of that statement depends on whether he emphasized the “me” or the “hurt” when he made the statement.  Additionally, just because he didn’t mind armed people where he was speaking (at the Ellipse, right?) doesn’t mean he intended for armed people to enter the Capitol—the really damning thing would be if he ordered the Capitol police to quit using their metal detectors, or whether he blocked a request by Capitol Police for federal assistance.  So far (and granted, I haven’t been following this very closely), I’m not sure that’s been conclusively shown.  

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, Suzie said:

What direct evidence you refer to?

To clarify, I’m riffing on the suggestion upthread that the congresscritters are deliberately refusing to call the people who were actually in the car, and saying that the notion (fictions or otherwise) of doing so is mind-boggling.

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To clarify, I’m riffing on the suggestion upthread that the congresscritters are deliberately refusing to call the people who were actually in the car, and saying that the notion (fictions or otherwise) of doing so is mind-boggling.

You need only look at @mirkwood's post above for the link.

But of course, people who automatically (and without evidence) accuse Trumpsters of simply ignoring all the goings on at the Capital as "Fake News" are all ready to call the information in that link as fake news as well.

FTR, I never said that the testimony thus far is fake news.  I just haven't bothered to try figuring that out since I know the procedures are completely unjust, we can't be taken in by a partial picture of things.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Carborendum

[Suzie]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed; and as you hint in your post, a lot of the meaning of that statement depends on whether he emphasized the “me” or the “hurt” when he made the statement.  Additionally, just because he didn’t mind armed people where he was speaking (at the Ellipse, right?) doesn’t mean he intended for armed people to enter the Capitol—the really damning thing would be if he ordered the Capitol police to quit using their metal detectors, or whether he blocked a request by Capitol Police for federal assistance.  So far (and granted, I haven’t been following this very closely), I’m not sure that’s been conclusively shown.  

Conclusively perhaps not, but the "event" was planned and even promoted online. He knew they were fully armed and his speech did nothing to calm the mob but all the opposite. He wanted support, he wanted people to rile up and stand by him no matter what. He took a very Machiavellian approach "the end justifies the means" and that's a very scary way of thinking and acting particularly if you happen to be the POTUS.

It is the behavior of either a very evil and self-absorbed narcissist or someone who is unhinged or demented. And yet, I feel as though none of this is important because "he was good for the economy". Honestly, I feel as though he can go and commit the most serious crime in front of the whole world and someone will say "but did he really do it? Hmmmm Do we have proof?. Maybe it was a double...those dems again!" or worse: "I don't care about that, look how good our economy is now!".

 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Conclusively perhaps not, but the "event" was planned and even promoted online. He knew they were fully armed and his speech did nothing to calm the mob but all the opposite. He wanted support, he wanted people to rile up and stand by him no matter what. He took a very Machiavellian approach "the end justifies the means" and that's a very scary way of thinking and acting particularly if you happen to be the POTUS.

It is the behavior of either a very evil and self-absorbed narcissist or someone who is unhinged or demented. And yet, I feel as though none of this is important because "he was good for the economy". Honestly, I feel as though he can go and commit the most serious crime in front of the whole world and someone will say "but did he really do it? Hmmmm Do we have proof?. Maybe it was a double...those dems again!" or worse: "I don't care about that, look how good our economy is now!".

 

I am in sympathy with much of what you say, but when we talk about committing a crime—crime is determined not just by result, but by intent; and words like “insurrection” have a very particular meaning.  When we throw them around loosely, it makes it that much harder later when we find ourselves up against the real thing but have been dulled to it because of the hyperbolic nature of the last half-century of political discourse (cf “communist”, “fascist”, “bigotry”, “oppressor”, “totalitarian”, “lock her up”, “groomer”, etc).  

Trump should have de-escalated.  He didn’t.  His failure to do so, to my mind, simply affirms his unfitness for leadership.  But was it a product of his specific desire for an armed assault on the Capitol, or was a product of a larger personal flaw that renders “de-escalation” generally contrary to his general nature and character?

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Honestly, I feel as though he can go and commit the most serious crime in front of the whole world and someone will say "but did he really do it? Hmmmm Do we have proof?. Maybe it was a double...those dems again!" or worse: "I don't care about that, look how good our economy is now!".

Meanwhile, the media and Democrats studiously look the other way while our cities burn.

I voted for Trump in 2020. I think his SC appointments will be his lasting legacy. I believe I misunderstood his (admittedly base and crude) sense of humor before listening to much of it, which is where most of the animus against him originates. I am no huge fan of Trump, but nothing I have seen from the highly biased media has convinced me he's likely guilty of anything beyond stinking rotten politics.

The rioters, on the other hand, were fomenting and actually committing criminal acts in the name of revolution (aka sedition), just as the pro-abortionists are now doing, literally threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices. Somehow, this has been utterly forgotten (read: covered up) by the media, replaced by a handful of drunken yahoos whose "storming of the Capitol" involved walking around armed and stealing souvenirs. The uneven enforcement isn't even hidden any more.

If I'm cynical, it's because the media are a bunch of liars.

[Suzie]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 His failure to do so, to my mind, simply affirms his unfitness for leadership.  But was it a product of his specific desire for an armed assault on the Capitol, or was a product of a larger personal flaw that renders “de-escalation” generally contrary to his general nature and character?

Good questions. And the answers for both "affirms his unfitness for leadership" IMHO. JAG, I appreciate your take on this because it tells me that even though there are people out there who do support Trump and many of the good things he did, it doesn't mean they are blind followers willing to justify anything and everything.

I don't recall who said it, but a Republican some time ago said something along the lines of "Trump is not part of the Republican party, he IS the Republican party." This level of deification and adulation is extremely concerning.

[ldsguy422]

On 6/29/2022 at 9:10 PM, Carborendum said:

@Just_A_Guy's explanation was pretty good.

Beyond that, I'm perplexed by your response.

It appears as if you completely missed my entire post except for one phrase which you directly asked about.   And you're absolutely right about what you posted.  But you asked what you were missing.  I answered that question. 

Then you proceeded to repeat what you knew and skipped over all the stuff that you were missing.  So, if you don't want to hear what you're missing, I'm left wondering why exactly did you ask the question in the first place?

Let me summarize to excuse you from having to read the entire post (although you may find it informative):

1973:

Pro-choice = allow abortions in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. THIS WAS the Church's position in 1973.
Pro-life = outlaw all abortions except in the most extreme danger to the life of the mother.

2022:

Pro-choice = allow/encourage ANY AND ALL abortions upto a second before the baby takes its first breath.  No exceptions.
Pro-life = Allow in cases of rape/incest/threat to life of the mother.  And/or severely limit to very early stage pregnancies. This is close to the Church's position today

Did the church make an official statement in 1973? Sounds like you're saying the position the church took in 1973 was essentially the exact position we take today, but the world interprets the meaning of pro-life a little differently today.

Yeah, I guess when I think of a stance on abortion, I'm thinking of the elective abortions - the ones that comprise 98-99% of all abortions. Which is why I believe the general rule is pro-life, but you could say we're pro-choice in the rare exceptions. 

[NeuroTypical]

BTW, here is a screenshot from the churches 1999 handbook:

 

[ldsguy422]

So, in my first post in this thread I mentioned how I was seeing lots of active members show support of the pro-choice movement (mostly for those that are economically distressed). The 7th question in the temple interview is: "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Would a blanket pro-choice stance ever be in conflict with this temple worthy standard? Not sure I've heard one way or another. 

[person0]

27 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

. . . you could say we're pro-choice in the rare exceptions. 

More correctly, one could say we are pro-revelation for the rare exceptions.

The correct interpretation of the Church position is that abortion is always unjustified except when God reveals otherwise, and that He will not reveal such outside of the circumstances of the specified possible exceptions.

[Anddenex]

JP Strikes again:

 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

So, in my first post in this thread I mentioned how I was seeing lots of active members show support of the pro-choice movement (mostly for those that are economically distressed). The 7th question in the temple interview is: "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Would a blanket pro-choice stance ever be in conflict with this temple worthy standard? Not sure I've heard one way or another. 

There is a difference between arguing that something is right, versus arguing that it is not the kind of wrong that can or should be prohibited by government action (eg adultery, fornication, gay sex, recreational drug use, cussing).  I believe that directly participating in/encouraging a specific person to undergo an elective abortion, remains grounds for church discipline; but under present conditions it’s kind of hard to envision the Church administering ecclesiastical discipline to a member over the member’s political positions.
 

In a broader historical sense, I believe that question was added to the TR interview primarily to weed out fundamentalists and other polygamists whose theology (as of the 1920s-1940s) said that while the LDS Church was doctrinally wrong, the true sealing keys could still be found in LDS temples and thus it was necessary to feign allegiance to the LDS Church long enough to get your own temple work done.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

So, in my first post in this thread I mentioned how I was seeing lots of active members show support of the pro-choice movement (mostly for those that are economically distressed). The 7th question in the temple interview is: "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Would a blanket pro-choice stance ever be in conflict with this temple worthy standard? Not sure I've heard one way or another. 

I asked my stake president if being in the ACLU would keep me out of the temple. He looked surprised and said it wasn’t about politics. It’s probably the same thing. 

[Carborendum]

I found this kind of amusing, even thought provoking.

From Dailywire:

Quote

Buttigieg continued. “These protesters are upset because an important rite that the majority of Americans support was taken away.

I don't know if the author of the article intentionally did this, subconsciously did this, or completely unintentionally did this, or perhaps she didn't even know the difference?

But, uhmmm... yeah.

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I found this kind of amusing, even thought provoking.

From Dailywire:

I don't know if the author of the article intentionally did this, subconsciously did this, or completely unintentionally did this, or perhaps she didn't even know the difference?

But, uhmmm... yeah.

As one political wag said, abortion is a sacred rite, if your god is Moloch.

[Carborendum]

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

As one political wag said, abortion is a sacred rite, if your god is Moloch.

I've been reading a lot about Moloch lately to see what was the reality.  I can't really make much sense of it.  They can't really determine who worshipped him or not or if it was a "god" or a king or god/king like Pharaoh.  I'm still reading.  Maybe it will clear itself up after more reading.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I found this kind of amusing, even thought provoking.

From Dailywire:

I don't know if the author of the article intentionally did this, subconsciously did this, or completely unintentionally did this, or perhaps she didn't even know the difference?

But, uhmmm... yeah.

Interesting.

[mirkwood]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

As one political wag said, abortion is a sacred rite, if your god is Moloch.

Quote

I've been reading a lot about Moloch lately to see what was the reality.  I can't really make much sense of it.  They can't really determine who worshipped him or not or if it was a "god" or a king or god/king like Pharaoh.  I'm still reading.  Maybe it will clear itself up after more reading.

 

 

Moloch is a variation of Baal (Ba'al, Bael, Belial, etc.)

 

I have long said that abortion is a modern version of Baal worship.  Most of these ancient pagan gods were fertility gods and the worship frequently involved sex. orgies and child sacrifice.

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Moloch is a variation of Baal (Ba'al, Bael, Belial, etc.)

I have long said that abortion is a modern version of Baal worship.  Most of these ancient pagan gods were fertility gods and the worship frequently involved sex. orgies and child sacrifice.

I understand that is the common thread.  But after reading more on historical websites, there is much more about the historical worship of Moloch than what we read in the Bible.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I found this kind of amusing, even thought provoking.

From Dailywire:

I don't know if the author of the article intentionally did this, subconsciously did this, or completely unintentionally did this, or perhaps she didn't even know the difference?

But, uhmmm... yeah.

Could be that he gravely misspoke, something that seems to be a massive problem with this administration.

But at the same time, over the last few years there have been a flood of stories and purported photos circulating online claiming to represent incidents of women confessing to elective abortions for reasons well beyond what the mainstream in society - even those that support abortion - are willing to get behind. 

For example, one fairly recent one I've seen, but was never able to fact-check, claims that a woman publicly confessed to aborting her first child because the child was a boy and she *that* strongly objected to more male children being born, only for her husband to confront her with the fact that she told him it was a miscarriage. 

That Daily Wire bit, if true, is going to feed right into it.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I understand that is the common thread.  But after reading more on historical websites, there is much more about the historical worship of Moloch than what we read in the Bible.

 Correct, as with all the mentioned pagan gods.  I have not limited my studies on them to the Bible.  There are even arguments that some of the pagan gods named were simply "phrases" or "words" that held certain meanings and became identified as "idols."

When you delve into the root of the problem with the Israelites pursuing these other gods so frequently you often see themes of "whoring after other gods."  With the common theme of sex in the rituals, I don't think this is a turn of phrase.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

 Correct, as with all the mentioned pagan gods.  I have not limited my studies on them to the Bible.  There are even arguments that some of the pagan gods named were simply "phrases" or "words" that held certain meanings and became identified as "idols."

Yeah, that was the sort of thing I was noticing.

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

When you delve into the root of the problem with the Israelites pursuing these other gods so frequently you often see themes of "whoring after other gods."  With the common theme of sex in the rituals, I don't think this is a turn of phrase.

I had said the same thing to my Sunday School instructor.  He had asked, "Why do we use that phrase 'wicked and adulterous generation' seeking for a sign?"

People were quick to say how figurative it was, etc.  I agreed with the figurative meanings of the phrase.  But we were really dancing around the real meaning.

I said, "I think we're ignoring the elephant in the room.  I don't know of any behavior by otherwise God-fearing people that more commonly and more easily chases the Spirit away than a breach of the law of chastity."

It suddenly got really quiet in the room.  Did I say something amiss?