LDS leaders on physician assisted suicide and other topics

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

What does "follow the prophet" mean in a situation like this where some of us may disagree with the political position advocated by the 1st Presidency?

This is why the Book of Mormon was meant for our day. The answer is already within its pages.

[james12]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@James12 I agree with your overall philosophy. One interesting aspect of this particular discussion, though, is that our (for those in the effected states) encouragement to vote against legalization of marijuana is coming from our church leadership. Perhaps this hits very directly at the issue discussed in this thread:

but, how should a libertarian leaning Mormon in a state voting for the legalization of marijuana vote? Would it be "apostate" of us to vote for legalization when our prophets have asked us to vote against legalization? What does "follow the prophet" mean in a situation like this where some of us may disagree with the political position advocated by the 1st Presidency?

Elder Christofferson a couple of years ago gave a talk in General Conference entitled "Free Forvever, to Act for Themselves", where I believe he addressed this concern. He started by citing a portion of Shakespear's, The Life of King Henry the V. In the play two soldiers are discussing the serious battle that is to take place the following day. King Henry, who is in disguise, wanders to these soldiers. 

Quote

At one point King Henry declares, “Methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king’s company; his cause being just.”

Michael Williams retorts, “That’s more than we know.”

His companion agrees, “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the king’s subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.”

Williams adds, “If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make.”

Not surprisingly, King Henry disagrees. “Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.”

If the cause be wrong does obedience wipe the crime of it from us? Elder Christofferson continues: 

Quote

It is [God's] plan and His will that we have the principal decision-making role in our own life’s drama. God will not live our lives for us nor control us as if we were His puppets, as Lucifer once proposed to do. Nor will His prophets accept the role of “puppet master” in God’s place. Brigham Young stated: “I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”

We are not puppets and the prophet is not the "puppet master". Therefore, consider well the prophets council, pray about it, and vote according to the spirit of the Lord which is in you. In so doing you will be blessed. 

[mirkwood]

I will have missed things people have said.  This thread was too long to read everything.

 

A variety of thoughts on things others have said.
 

Quote

“I see no reason to fill our jails with marijuana users.”

 

We do not do that.  We fill our jails with criminals who often plea to lesser charges and appear to be “simple marijuana users.”  This mentality also fails to factor in the high volume of other crimes that druggies commit as they engage their addictions.  Most of these crimes they are never caught and prosecuted for, you have to catch them doing the forgery/burglary/robbery to prosecute them.  Drug use is not the victimless crime some falsely advocate.

 

Quote

committed a victimless crime at a young age. Therefore, it makes it much harder for them to find employment throughout their lives and to become productive members of society

 

Again, not a victimless crime.  19 years on the street has proven this to me.  I do think felonies should be classified as violent or non violent and should be viewed in those lights.

Quote

Hi from smoky good-feelin' Colorado.

Now MJ is fully legal here, we're in the middle of discovering the impact of legalizing it.  We're in the middle of gathering new data of how many auto accidents, people fired for cause from places of employment, instances of domestic violence, misdemeanors, felonies, homicides, etc, involve someone with MJ in their system, and how much of it is present. 

Not much in the way of completed scientific studies yet, just growing anecdotes.  As we're gathering these statistics, we keep seeing the answer "more than before legalization" over and over and over and over again.  And over again.

 

Insert anectdotal “I told you so” here.

 

 

Quote

1)  At least in Utah, my experience is that you probably won't do jail time on a first- or second-time marijuana possession offense (other than perhaps a night in jail while you sober up/make bail) so long as you keep to the terms of your probation.  (It's not a matter of getting a pricey attorney; this is even true with LDAs.  In fact, many LDAs are better at negotiating plea deals than private counsel; because the DAs see the LDAs much more frequently and will probably be on friendlier terms with them.)  If you violate probation, or if you had intent to distribute, or if you were busted in a drug-free zone; then yeah, a few months becomes more likely.  But this notion that our prisons are full of non-violent offenders who did nothing worse than have a couple ounces of weed on their persons, is generally incorrect (at least as far as Utah goes).

Yep.

 

Quote

What a lot of people seem to think is that not legalizing marijuana means we have to keep enforcing bans in the way that we have, including confiscating ALL of someone's property because a small amount of marijuana was found inside a tenant's room

Asset forfeiture takes more than "a small amount of marijuana."

Quote

Yes, the court ordered that the property be restored (7 years later and after it had been sold), but it was too late.  A conviction wasn't even needed as the law (as upheld by some moronic courts) specified that property seizure could happen before conviction because it was wrong that someone who obtained money through selling drugs then be allowed to use that money. “ 

 

 

I am unaware of any asset forfeiture and sale of the property occurring PRIOR to convictions of an offense.  Is this anectdotal or can a reference to this incident be provided?

 

Quote

Of course many departments are now using for revenue enhancement, and a few have even reportedly been accused of planting evidence so that they can get lucrative properties.

 

Revenue enhancement.  Always an amusing buzz word to rile people up.  Asset forfeiture funds may be used to further narcotics investigations. Not a pay raise.   If there is planted evidence it is rare and when we catch our own doing it we hate them more than anyone else.  We hate dirty cops more than anyone else.

 

Quote

When has any person (Black or otherwise) been deliberately targeted and shot while at work coconsciously doing their job – excluding drug dealers and Mafia hit men.

I have, but I get your point.

 

Quote

“I don't have the time or patience to discuss Black Lives Matter here.  ”

 

 

Nor can I ignore this issue.

 

The Truth Behind the Black Lives Matter Movement and the War on Police can be purchased at this link:  https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Behind-Matter-Movement-Police/dp/1944783520/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1476841045&sr=1-1&keywords=black+lives+matter+and+the+war+on+police

 

 

Quote

“MJ is not so much a drug that causes someone to act foolish (except when they are so addicted they steal money to get their next supply) but more of a drug that causes someone to not act at all.”

That is an uninformed opinion.

 

Quote

 Hey @mirkwood - care to tell us again how many and how often?

Name the drug I have probably fought someone on it.  Including pot heads.  Meth users are typically the worst, but I have had some good knockdowns with potheads over the years.  Heroin is supposed to make you mellow too.  I've had a couple of really ugly fights with heroin users.  But we are talking about marijuana....so yeah, I've had quite a few fights with potheads.

 

Quote

“while keeping a few armed goons on the back shelf in case any newcomers to the business start infringing on their market share.”

Anyone who thinks the cartels will not continue to use violence in their business, whether it has been legalized or not, has not spent much time actually involved in some way with the drug trade world.  Legalization will never stop the violence.  Ever.

 

 

Quote

“The reality is that “Hands up don’t shut” never happened in Ferguson.  By definition those that believe it did are suffering from a psychotic condition – because it is not reality – it did not happen.”

You are correct sir.

 

Quote

If anyone can show reason to believe that there is a legitimate concern that Blacks in neighborhoods of high unemployment and high drug usage have greater danger of being shot or accosted by the police than by the criminal elements of their neighborhoods.   I have not encountered any scientific study (using reality data) that support in anyway such an idea.”

You are correct sir.  Anyone want a quick look at this?  Google the number of shootings in Chicago last weekend.

 

 

But what would I know about it...

[Just_A_Guy]

44 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I am unaware of any asset forfeiture and sale of the property occurring PRIOR to convictions of an offense.  Is this anectdotal or can a reference to this incident be provided?

. . . .

Revenue enhancement.  Always an amusing buzz word to rile people up.  Asset forfeiture funds may be used to further narcotics investigations. Not a pay raise.   If there is planted evidence it is rare and when we catch our own doing it we hate them more than anyone else.  We hate dirty cops more than anyone else.

FWIW--I have seen prosecutors begin civil asset forfeiture cases while the criminal case is still pending.  I had this happen once with a kid who was running a modest little grow operation in his mom's basement primarily for self-use, but who also happened to have $300 in cash down there that his mom had given him for a bike he was planning to purchase the next day.  We were pretty neatly boxed in--I wasn't about to let my client testify about anything in that basement, in any forum; so all he could do in the civil asset case was to take the fifth and keep his mouth shut.  But in civil cases, pleading the 5th gives rise to a presumption against the person who claims the privilege--so the court could conclude, for purposes of the forfeiture case, that the money was going to be used for illicit purposes. 

There was a federal prosecutor at the heroin/opioid summit who made the case that they need civil asset forfeiture to help attack the networks/cartels that import and distribute the product, and I believe him.  But I also think that asset forfeiture gives the government an awful lot of power that, if not regulated very strictly, creates an enormous temptation for those involved with the system.  I would like to see a thoughtful overhaul of how asset forfeiture is done.  

Edited October 19, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[mirkwood]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FWIW--I have seen prosecutors begin civil asset forfeiture cases while the criminal case is still pending.

I did not think that was allowed.  You are right that there need to be pretty solid guidelines regulating a.f.

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Quick question anatess2, do you know why you believe this?  Do you remember where you learned this, who taught you, and what they were using as a source?  I know the notion of the "peaceful high dude, laying on his back and being at one with the universe" is pushed hard by kids in school, users, advocates, and those lobbying for legalization. 

 

I once was what you'd call a groupie during my Skid Row days... they love me because I was the only one who they can rely on to stay sober while they go tripping.  The Skid Row song Breakin' Down is a popular MJ tripping song among that bunch.

On another note... I think it was Jeff Foxworthy who had this running joke about the joys of being the designated driver... you get to see all the stupid things they do and you can mess with them like dropping people off at the wrong houses...

Edited October 19, 2016 by anatess2

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Traveler,just to clarify where you are coming from, do you think the BLM movement is about one incident? If that is what you think, I can understand why you would feel the way you do.

The reason I feel the way I do is because I know it's about so much more. I  used to try and remember their names, to honor them, but I can't keep up there are so many.

 

To clarify where I am coming from – a person with a mental disorder cannot be dealt with using rational arguments or just examples in reality – or anything else based in reality and logic.  This is a hard lesson I learned dealing with a mother-in-law suffering from acute bipolar disorder.

There are a number of movements that have been exploited by dark elements of our political party system in order to create a mob mentality.  I believe that the BLM (not Bureau of Land Management) and “Occupy Wall Street” specifically target elements of our society engaged in recreational drug usage by design.

I served in an Intelligence Unit of the US Army that specialized in a number of tactics – including methods to disrupt and create chaos using mass “brainwashing” techniques.  Not everybody involved in the BLM is suffering from psychotic paranoia.  But two thing I am quite sure about.  #1. Those that fear being shot by police but do not fear being harmed by looters or violent outbursts are mental and are being exploited.  #2. We will not make progress or resolve anything without identifying and dealing with the dark elements funding and controlling such movements with a “hidden” or “secret” agenda.  Looting and disruption in the patterns we are seeing occur are carefully orchestrated and are not a coincidence.

One last point we should all know – insurance will not cover the cost of damages caused by war or civil uprising.  The damage these organizations do is painful beyond measure to honest people trying to make an honest living in difficult communities of problem circumstance.  It is impossible for an honest business to survive such conditions - which leaves corrupt elements in complete control in such environments and municipalities.  That anyone gives any credence or support to such movements is a complete astonishment to me –we have known since Hitler (Joseph Goebbels) how political and media elements working together can brainwash a population.

 

The Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

To clarify where I am coming from – a person with a mental disorder cannot be dealt with using rational arguments or just examples in reality – or anything else based in reality any thing else based in reality and logic.

Then you shouldn't waste your time talking to me, as I am diagnosed  (by a psychologist) with PTSD and a Dissociative Disorder. @anatess2 has IED (did I get the initials correct, Anatess?)

I believe Anatess and I are both perfectlyrics capable of having a rational argument.  Not all mental disorders are the same, Traveler.

You know whow I believe cannot have a ratonal argument is someone who is stuck in prejudices and not willing to objectivelyrics consider both sides of an issue, or new information. But being someone with a mental disorder, what do I know? 

[Traveler]

32 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Then you shouldn't waste your time talking to me, as I am diagnosed  (by a psychologist) with PTSD and a Dissociative Disorder. @anatess2 has IED (did I get the initials correct, Anatess?)

I believe Anatess and I are both perfectlyrics capable of having a rational argument.  Not all mental disorders are the same, Traveler.

You know whow I believe cannot have a ratonal argument is someone who is stuck in prejudices and not willing to objectivelyrics consider both sides of an issue, or new information. But being someone with a mental disorder, what do I know? 

When someone is fearful of being shot by a policeman - while not breaking any laws and conducting themselves in a lawful manner at work - or driving to work and not trying to resist authority - but are not fearful of mob violence.  Obviously rational logic is not working – but I am open to what will work.  What is the solution?

Also since legitimate and honest businesses will be forced to close because of looting – what possible solutions are there for viable employment in such neighborhoods – for people afraid to work?  What logic – what change – is going to make a difference?

Please understand there is no logic in revenge – and never has been in the entire history of mankind.  What is the BLM movement wanting to happen?  I am suggesting that standard logic and business as usual is not going to work – are you saying it will?  That the BLM should be treated just like everybody else?  Whenever they break the law – they are arrested?  That such logic is what is going to work?

Also I believe drugs are logically part of the problem – Are you suggesting that those that so desire be given more open access to drugs of choice?  That we just back off and leave such neighborhood to fend for themselves?

I have suggested in previous posts that we learn from history – both to identify the problems created by drugs in a society and to learn what to do about it.  That we consider the Opiate Wars of China as well as the 100 years of shame that took down a super power and ended thousands of years of traditions of one of the world’s greatest civilizations.

I am suggesting that the patterns are too similar to ignore – what is the other possibility or possibilities I am missing and too prejudice to consider?

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

To clarify where I am coming from – a person with a mental disorder cannot be dealt with using rational arguments or just examples in reality – or anything else based in reality and logic.  This is a hard lesson I learned dealing with a mother-in-law suffering from acute bipolar disorder.

This is some sort of a misstatement, right?  I'm going elk hunting soon with my nam vet buddy with PTSD - I'm sort of counting on dealing with him on a rational level, since he's providing the guns, ammo, cabin, and hunting skills...

I married someone with PTSD, ADD/ADHD, and major depression - she's one of the more rational people I know, has signature authority on just about every single dollar and credit card my name is associated with...

Could you clarify Traveler?

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

what is the other possibility or possibilities I am missing and too prejudice to consider?

When I mentioned "prejudice", I was referring to your pre-judgement of people with mental illness.  You appear to judge everyone with a mental illness based on your experiences with one person. And that judgement was insulting to the rest of us.  So no offense intended, but until we get this resolved, I don't see the point in discussing anything else.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

This is some sort of a misstatement, right?

NeuroTypical, I really appreciate/admire your calm request for clarification.  That is my goal, but sometimes my temper gets the best of me.  

Traveler, if I misjudged you, I apologize, but if you meant what I thought you said, then my previous comments stand. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On October 18, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Speaking for myself (a bit of a threadjack, but what the heck?):  The BLM movement is about a number of incidents; but one of their problems is that they keep pointing to so many bogus incidents--Trayvon Martin (jumped a neighborhood watchman who--horror of horrors!--dared to follow Martin), Michael Brown (knocked over a convenience store and then attacked a cop), Keith Scott (apparently couldn't tell the difference between a gun and a Koran), ad nauseum. 

It's hard to generalize about all members of a movement; and I'm open to looking at what systemic changes we can make to give African Americans a fairer deal.  But it's hard to shake the impression that an unhealthy number of BLM supporters are just peeved that when they start shooting at white guys, the white guys (or the "white" institutions that defend them) would have the temerity to shoot back.

I wanted to start a new thread and quote this post, but with this new forum software I've lost the ability to do that.  So I'll just answer here.  

I agree that it is hard to, and in fact we should not, generalize about all members of a movement.  And I appreciate that you are open to some changes to give Blacks a fairer deal.  Where we disagree is that I feel it is opponents of BLM that keep coming back to the cases you mentioned.  In the groups I'm in and the people I talk to it is so much larger than that.  Black people are talking about the other cases, why isn't everyone else?  For example: 

Charles Kinsey was the caretaker of an autistic man who had wandered out into the street.  Kinsey was outside trying to talk to the patient and get him out of danger. When the police came on the scene, Kinsey lay down on his back with his hands in the air....and he still got shot.  What happened to "just comply and everything will be okay?"  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/21/south-florida-police-shoot-autistic-mans-caretaker-as-lies-in-street.html#

What about Akai Gurley?  All he did was walk into the stairwell of his apartment building and a jumpy police officer shot and killed him.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/21/south-florida-police-shoot-autistic-mans-caretaker-as-lies-in-street.html#

And there's John Crawford, he picked up a gun from the shelf in Walmart (one they were selling) then continued shopping while talking on the phone to his girlfriend, some guy called the police and said a man was waving a gun around (not true), the police came on the scene and killed Crawford. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/

And then there is Walter Scott, shot in the back while running away from a police officer.  Some might say he shouldn't have run, but laying on the ground with his hands up didn't help Charles Kinsey.  Not only did the officer shoot him in the back, but then he lied about what happened. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/us/north-charleston-police-michael-slager-indicted-walter-scott-shooting/

And these are just a few whose names I can remember.  I've stopped trying to remember their names there are too many.  

Unfortunately, as is the case with rape, usually there are no witnesses to these incidents, so we have to piece the story together the best we can afterwards.  And more unfortunately, in the cases of Black people and the police, there is only one person left to tell the story . . .  So the people who are against BLM chose the side that suits their world view and the Blacks and their allies believe the side that fits their world view.  Traveler would have us believe that Blacks are psychotic for fearing the police.  I think thats really offensive, and unbelievably naive.  Whether or not one agrees, there is ample evidence for someone who is willing to consider it, of why Blacks are so outraged.  I am outraged with them. 

ETA:  I shouldn't have to say this repeatedly, but I will because I think it is needed.  I don't hate police officers.  Nor do I hold them on a pedestal.  I think they are humans like the rest of us and i think in most of these cases what we are seeing is officers acting out of fear due to implicit bias.  Except in the case of Walter Scott, I  think that officer is racist.  But by and large, I think they are human.  Some good, some bad, some perhaps have PTSD brought on by the job . . . for some the power goes to their head.  AND some do deserve Hero status for the work they do.  

Edited October 20, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I wanted to start a new thread and quote this post, but with this new forum software I've lost the ability to do that.  So I'll just answer here.  
 

[.quote] You can still do quotes manually this way. It won't tag the original poster or link the post you're quoting, but it still works, minus the periods of course. [./quote]

[Just_A_Guy]

@LiterateParakeet - I'm only passingly familiar with most of the instances you cite, but take Kinsey, for example--the best evidence now suggests that police were actually aiming for Kinsey's (white) patient and missed.  Also, the shooter was hispanic (as was Martin's shooter; and Keith Scott's shooter was black); but all these incidents are somehow attributed to white racism.

At any rate, this insistence that race must be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral--in addition to attributing all racial problems to White America™--underlies a lot of my mistrust for BLM.  I think Traveler's use of the word "psychotic" is unfortunate, because it connotes a severe mental illness.  But I do think that there seems to be a pervasive attitude amongst BLM supporters that police are looking for an excuse to kill random black folks and an irrational refusal to hear the other side or try to understand the nuances of the situation.  Those attitudes, I think, are a) partly--but absolutely not wholly--evidence-based, and b) are being deliberately stoked by "community organizers", politicians, and the media for pecuniary or political gain.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

 

Some “things”.

For the record – I am dyslexic.  I had difficulty with some educational disciplines as a child such as reading out loud and spelling.  My teachers did not understand why I had outstanding comprehension and did well on tests but could not read out loud or pass oral exams but if it was written.  However, I did not think I had a problem – I thought something was wrong with everybody else and as a result I became very attached to logic.

I apologize to anyone that thinks I judge all with mental disorders the same.  I believe everybody has different abilities and we need to address each person according to their abilities.  

 

BUT

I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction – not so different from what we all can read in the “WE WARN” paragraph of the - Proclamation to the World.  Because many are in denial about the effects of drugs on individuals, families, neighborhood, cities and even nations – including marijuana and alcohol.  I predict that this country will see an increase in violence – Just as China did before and during the opiate wars.  That we will see – as we have been warned – history repeating and the violence extending beyond isolated and contained neighborhoods to places we currently think are exempt and safe.  And then it will be too late because the influence of drugs and the corruption of money will have such a tight grip on government and courts – that as the Book of Mormon has warned – much blood shed will be necessary to remove the corruption and preserve liberty. 

 

The Traveler

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Just_A_Guy It's been awhile, but I recall the police saying they shot Kinsey to protect him. Of course, we all thought that was pretty odd.

I feel like you  side stepped my point though, perhaps that was my fault for not being clear enough. Here's the thing: what Black people (generally speaking) feel when they see these and so many other incidents is: no matter what you do any encounter with the police might be fatal. Period and yes that creates fear. Of course it does, it should.

It doesn't matter if you are minding your own business  (shopping at Walmart, or walking into the stairwell of your own apartment building).  It makes no difference if you put your hands in the air and lay on the ground, (how much more compliant and submissive could he have been?) It won't help to run like Walter Scott. And you better not argue like Eric Garner.  

You and most people I talk to are not aware of these stories. I didn't even tell you about the poor guy that got in an accident late in the night and went and knocked  on a neighborhood door to ask for help. The woman inside called the police and told them a black man was trying to break in. They came on the scene and killed him, no questions asked. Families of mentally ill (real mental illness) have called the police for assistance and then their worst nightmare comes true when the police arrive and kill the mentally ill person. Yes that has happened more than once. 

No, if you don't follow "black news" or have black friends you probably haven't heard of most of these. Therefore it's easy for people to turn a blind eye and say black people are paranoid. But can you honestly tell me if all these things happened to LDS (imagine we wore some distinctive clothing) in the same ratios they happen to blacks that you would not feel concerned. How could any rational, honest person not say yes?

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

No, if you don't follow "black news" or have black friends you probably haven't heard of most of these. Therefore it's easy for people to turn a blind eye and say black people are paranoid. But can you honestly tell me if all these things happened to LDS (imagine we wore some distinctive clothing) in the same ratios they happen to blacks that you would not feel concerned. How could any rational, honest person not say yes?

I get it; but it's frustrating that we can only have these conversations on very limited terms.  Cops do often seem to get jumpy/trigger-happy around blacks, granted.  They should learn to control themselves, obviously.  But we're not allowed to take the next step and ask whether this type of paranoia may also have some justification.  We can't suggest that maybe (white) cops have as much reason to be edgy around blacks, as blacks have to be edgy around cops.  To suggest that maybe police paranoia is exacerbated by statistical evidence showing disproportionate levels of crime arising from the black community, and then to try to dissect African-American culture to see what changes might ameliorate the situation, is to invite an accusation of racism which inevitably ends the discussion.

It's like the man who keeps inviting his wife to marriage counseling saying he wants to "work out" their differences--but get them into therapy, and he takes up all the time complaining about all the things his wife does wrong while tolerating no scrutiny whatsoever of his own conduct.  Some guys who say they want to fix their marriage, are actually trying to fix their marriage.  Others are just gaslighting, trying to deploy another form of abusive control.  A guy who won't inspect his own behavior and history is more likely to be in the second of those two categories; and sooner or later, his wife is going to walk away from the negotiating table.

And that's what I say to BLM.  We may disagree about the size of the problem, but fundamentally we do believe there's a problem.  They have a very clear picture of what I'm supposed to do.  What are they willing to do? 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Then you shouldn't waste your time talking to me, as I am diagnosed  (by a psychologist) with PTSD and a Dissociative Disorder. @anatess2 has IED (did I get the initials correct, Anatess?)

I believe Anatess and I are both perfectlyrics capable of having a rational argument.  Not all mental disorders are the same, Traveler.

You know whow I believe cannot have a ratonal argument is someone who is stuck in prejudices and not willing to objectivelyrics consider both sides of an issue, or new information. But being someone with a mental disorder, what do I know? 

Yep, IED.  Improvised Explosive Device or Intermittent Explosive Disorder, they kinda have the same effect - it hurts people around the person including the person himself.

I apologize, I wasn't tracking this conversation so I'm not really sure what is the issue being talked about.

I just want to say something about mental disorder and rationality as it pertains to the kingdom of heaven as I've studied my condition.

• There is mental disorder that is incapable of reason.  This type of mental disorder, in my opinion, is God's way of preserving souls from the stains of mortality.  These souls are put on earth not necessarily that they may exercise their free will to choose good over evil (to act) but as people who are to be acted upon (causes other people to act in their exercise of free will).  My kids' babysitter had a son who was born with cerebral palsy.  This son who lived to the age of 20 but whose brain function never matured beyond the equivalent of a 6 month old was a joy to his mother but a pain to his father.  Both parents will be accountable to how they act/react to the boy.  The boy, I would like to believe, did not have to account for any of his acts on earth.
• There is also mental disorder that is capable of reason.  This type of mental disorder, in my opinion, is God's way of yoking the soul in mortality in his exercise of free will to choose good over evil.  Everybody has a yoke they carry - being born in extreme poverty, being born with homosexual desires, getting a debilitating disease, or like me having a physiological disorder that causes my body's chemical production to induce the anger emotion to not match the perceived stimulus.  For mental/physiological disorders such as these, our capacity to reason can be instrumental in our ability to exercise our free agency and hold on to the Light of Christ even as we struggle with this mortal trial.
• The issue with drugs/marijuana/alcohol/cigarettes/etc.. is its debilitating effect on our ability to exercise our free agency.  It's basically choosing to put ourselves on bullet 2 above when it is completely avoidable.

The greatest sin that we can do is to deprive someone of free agency.  This is the sin of Satan in his quest to wrest power from God.  For us to be instrumental in other people being deprived of their agency - murder, rape, etc. - can bring us to the brink of hell.  So, how does that translate to legislation in terms of the sale of mind-altering substances?  The answer, I guess, is what the leaders are advising us on in the OP.

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I get it; but it's frustrating that we can only have these conversations on very limited terms.  Cops do often seem to get jumpy/trigger-happy around blacks, granted.  They should learn to control themselves, obviously.   

Thank you.  It is very rare that someone who is not a supporter of BLM will admit this.  I know of two.  You and my husband.  (I have a great husband!)

Quote

But we're not allowed to take the next step and ask whether this type of paranoia may also have some justification.  We can't suggest that maybe (white) cops have as much reason to be edgy around blacks, as blacks have to be edgy around cops.  To suggest that maybe police paranoia is exacerbated by statistical evidence showing disproportionate levels of crime arising from the black community, and then to try to dissect African-American culture to see what changes might ameliorate the situation, is to invite an accusation of racism which inevitably ends the discussion.

There are two directions we could go with this.  Some might see this as the wife-abuser saying, "I'm sorry I hit you, Sweetheart, but you provoked me.  I really wish you wouldn't make me hit you like that."  

On the other hand, since I asked you to try and see my side, I will try to do the same and look at this from the point of view you are suggesting.  It is true that neighborhoods that have a high population of Blacks have high crime rates.  And yes, if I were a police officer in one of those neighborhoods, I'm sure I would be jumpy too.  

That said, let's look at how those neighborhoods came to be, and why they are high crime.  First of all, it goes back to the Great Migration.  None of us, that I know of, were taught about that in school, but we should have been.  From 1910 to 1970 6 million blacks fled the Jim Crow south, to the North and West.  Unfortunately, what they found was that while racism was more covert in the North and West, it was just as real as it had been in the south.  For anyone interested in this topic, The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson is really good.  In the North blacks struggled to find jobs and housing.  The effort to keep Black people out was so commonly practiced that it has a name: redlining.  There was even a national law enacted, eventually, to stop this practice, but it didn't stop it.  It simply drove it underground.  That is how we ended up with black people grouped together in the poorest neighborhoods.  

So now we have rundown neighborhoods full of Black people.  So why don't they all just do a Ben Carson and get themselves out of that situation (hmmm, why don't we all become doctors like he did? Maybe because we're not all cut out to be doctors?)  Blacks have more difficulty getting hired than whites do.  Studies have shown this.  Here's one of many articles addressing this: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/08/black-men-need-more-education-to-get-the-same-jobs/375770/.  Blacks are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses than whites and more likely to serve time (various reasons account for this but money and connections are factors).  Once you have a record, it is even harder to get a job, and find housing.  Forget any kind of public assistance, it's not available to "ex-cons".  

Education is another issue for blacks. Black children face a struggle to be treated fairly.  They are more often held back, and suspended than whites. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal

Blacks have more difficulty getting health and mental health care: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2015/03/05/healthcare-black-latino-poor/#12be30621ca7

Quote

And that's what I say to BLM.  We may disagree about the size of the problem, but fundamentally we do believe there's a problem.  They have a very clear picture of what I'm supposed to do.  What are they willing to do?

So...with all these obstacles, we still want to ask Blacks what they are doing to improve their situation? Actually, they are doing plenty.  Black parents give their kids "the talk" and it's not about sex.  It's about how to be respectful and courteous to police officers and try to stay alive.  They are working to improve education and families.  I see stories about that sort of thing all the time---because I follow Black media.  It's not the kind of story that makes it to Fox, or NBC, or New York Times.  But the stories are out there.  People are working on these issues.  

About the issue of race always coming up in these discussions, well of course.  Trying to discuss the challenges Blacks face without discussion race would be like trying to discuss religion without talking about faith.  Could anyone accept Joseph Smith's story without faith?  No, because the two are interwoven.  

Some of the things BLM is asking for is accountability.  For police departments not to investigate themselves, to wear body cameras, to face consequences when they kill an innocent person.  Is that really too much to ask?  In the scenario of the battered wife, is it wrong to put the abuser in jail?  After all, she did provoke him.  

I believe we need to stop blaming the victims (they are working hard to clean their own house so to speak), let's start looking at stopping the abuse and the abusers.  A good start would be to SEE that there IS a problem.  You see that JAG, but so many don't.  

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Thank you.  It is very rare that someone who is not a supporter of BLM will admit this.  I know of two.  You and my husband.  (I have a great husband!)

There are two directions we could go with this.  Some might see this as the wife-abuser saying, "I'm sorry I hit you, Sweetheart, but you provoked me.  I really wish you wouldn't make me hit you like that."  

On the other hand, since I asked you to try and see my side, I will try to do the same and look at this from the point of view you are suggesting.  It is true that neighborhoods that have a high population of Blacks have high crime rates.  And yes, if I were a police officer in one of those neighborhoods, I'm sure I would be jumpy too.  

That said, let's look at how those neighborhoods came to be, and why they are high crime.  First of all, it goes back to the Great Migration.  None of us, that I know of, were taught about that in school, but we should have been.  From 1910 to 1970 6 million blacks fled the Jim Crow south, to the North and West.  Unfortunately, what they found was that while racism was more covert in the North and West, it was just as real as it had been in the south.  For anyone interested in this topic, The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson is really good.  In the North blacks struggled to find jobs and housing.  The effort to keep Black people out was so commonly practiced that it has a name: redlining.  There was even a national law enacted, eventually, to stop this practice, but it didn't stop it.  It simply drove it underground.  That is how we ended up with black people grouped together in the poorest neighborhoods.  

So now we have rundown neighborhoods full of Black people.  So why don't they all just do a Ben Carson and get themselves out of that situation (hmmm, why don't we all become doctors like he did? Maybe because we're not all cut out to be doctors?)  Blacks have more difficulty getting hired than whites do.  Studies have shown this.  Here's one of many articles addressing this: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/08/black-men-need-more-education-to-get-the-same-jobs/375770/.  Blacks are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses than whites and more likely to serve time (various reasons account for this but money and connections are factors).  Once you have a record, it is even harder to get a job, and find housing.  Forget any kind of public assistance, it's not available to "ex-cons".  

Education is another issue for blacks. Black children face a struggle to be treated fairly.  They are more often held back, and suspended than whites. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/28/us-education-still-separate-and-unequal

Blacks have more difficulty getting health and mental health care: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2015/03/05/healthcare-black-latino-poor/#12be30621ca7

So...with all these obstacles, we still want to ask Blacks what they are doing to improve their situation? Actually, they are doing plenty.  Black parents give their kids "the talk" and it's not about sex.  It's about how to be respectful and courteous to police officers and try to stay alive.  They are working to improve education and families.  I see stories about that sort of thing all the time---because I follow Black media.  It's not the kind of story that makes it to Fox, or NBC, or New York Times.  But the stories are out there.  People are working on these issues.  

About the issue of race always coming up in these discussions, well of course.  Trying to discuss the challenges Blacks face without discussion race would be like trying to discuss religion without talking about faith.  Could anyone accept Joseph Smith's story without faith?  No, because the two are interwoven.  

Some of the things BLM is asking for is accountability.  For police departments not to investigate themselves, to wear body cameras, to face consequences when they kill an innocent person.  Is that really too much to ask?  In the scenario of the battered wife, is it wrong to put the abuser in jail?  After all, she did provoke him.  

I believe we need to stop blaming the victims (they are working hard to clean their own house so to speak), let's start looking at stopping the abuse and the abusers.  A good start would be to SEE that there IS a problem.  You see that JAG, but so many don't.  

Well... I don't think it's hard to see the problems.  It is shoved in our faces every single election year since MLK got shot.

The problem I see is that every single solution gets buried in the game of politics.  We can't offer solutions by addressing the problems in the black community because then you'd be Republican.  And "Republicans are racists".  We can't offer solutions by addressing the problems in the judicial system because then you'd be Democrat.  And "Democrats are segregationists".  Even just saying Law and Order becomes a code word for racist.

So, really... until we can get rid of partisan politics, this discussion in the arena of public opinion will never result in actionable solutions.  It will just be another round of rhetoric used to gin up some guy's campaign.  The Democrats yell Black Lives Matter, the Republicans yell Blue Lives Matter.  When both are actually wanting the exact same thing.

I think the discussion between you and JAG can be pulled as an example of this.  You are looking at it in the same perspective as Democrats look at it.  JAG is looking at it in the same perspective as Republican look at it.  But instead of Democrats and Republicans using it to bludgeon each other in the arena of public opinion, you and JAG are not trying to bludgeon each other but trying to talk to each other addressing the problems in the black community and the judicial system both.  If only we can get the people who actually have the power to do something about it in the form of meaningful governance, we can talk about it all we want and nothing will change.

To me, the solution is to eliminate the racial component and make all colors adhere to the Constitution. A black guy committing a crime is punishable by law.  A cop shooting that black guy when it is not called for is also committing a crime punishable by law.  Now, let's figure out how to solve the problem of black guys committing crimes and let's solve the problem of cops shooting at black guys when it is not called for.  The rest of the discussion should be on why it can't be that simple...

 

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Windseeker]

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

To me, the solution is to eliminate the racial component and make all colors adhere to the Constitution. A black guy committing a crime is punishable by law.  A cop shooting that black guy when it is not called for is also committing a crime punishable by law.  Now, let's figure out how to solve the problem of black guys committing crimes and let's solve the problem of cops shooting at black guys when it is not called for.  The rest of the discussion should be on why it can't be that simple...

I'm agree with this and Morgan Freeman's statement that the solution to racism is to stop talking about it. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Well... I don't think it's hard to see the problems.  It is shoved in our faces every single election year since MLK got shot.

The problem I see is that every single solution gets buried in the game of politics.  We can't offer solutions by addressing the problems in the black community because then you'd be Republican.  And "Republicans are racists".  We can't offer solutions by addressing the problems in the judicial system because then you'd be Democrat.  And "Democrats are segregationists".  Even just saying Law and Order becomes a code word for racist.

So, really... until we can get rid of partisan politics, this discussion in the arena of public opinion will never result in actionable solutions.  It will just be another round of rhetoric used to gin up some guy's campaign.  The Democrats yell Black Lives Matter, the Republicans yell Blue Lives Matter.  When both are actually wanting the exact same thing.

I think the discussion between you and JAG can be pulled as an example of this.  You are looking at it in the same perspective as Democrats look at it.  JAG is looking at it in the same perspective as Republican look at it.  But instead of Democrats and Republicans using it to bludgeon each other in the arena of public opinion, you and JAG are not trying to bludgeon each other but trying to talk to each other addressing the problems in the black community and the judicial system both.  If only we can get the people who actually have the power to do something about it in the form of meaningful governance, we can talk about it all we want and nothing will change.

To me, the solution is to eliminate the racial component and make all colors adhere to the Constitution. A black guy committing a crime is punishable by law.  A cop shooting that black guy when it is not called for is also committing a crime punishable by law.  Now, let's figure out how to solve the problem of black guys committing crimes and let's solve the problem of cops shooting at black guys when it is not called for.  The rest of the discussion should be on why it can't be that simple...

 

 

Then in the interest of discussing why it can't be that simple, or the interest of discussing the roots of the problem as opposed to the fruits of the problem let me ask more questions. It is not racist for me to refer to the facts such as that crime rates of many kinds are higher in communities that are predominantly black (than in communities that are predominantly white). It is a fact that more blacks are murdered by other blacks than are blacks murdered by whites, for example. The question is why is this so? 

Edited October 21, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

46 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

I'm agree with this and Morgan Freeman's statement that the solution to racism is to stop talking about it. 

I don't understand this way of thinking.  For example, our Church Leaders have been talking about the war on the family for sometime (and rightfully so) under Morgan Freeman logic they should just stop talking about it and the problem will go away. Right?  

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't understand this way of thinking.  For example, our Church Leaders have been talking about the war on the family for sometime (and rightfully so) under Morgan Freeman logic they should just stop talking about it and the problem will go away. Right?  

I agree with you that talking about it is precisely what we should be doing . It is talking past one another that we should stop doing.