What's new

Fall 2018 General Conference Thread

Oh and I meant to say a Democrat who is an Amazon customer in my last post. Sorry.

OK so going off of this post:
Complaining about the money the LDS institution puts into politics you don't support while you (a) play some role in giving them money, and (b) wall yourself off from ever having any influence on where that money goes is dumb and hypocritical.
my scenario fulfills (a) because I would be complaining about something they are doing that is contrary to my politics, and (b) because I have no way of having any say in how they spend their money unless, I dunno, become a shareholder or something.
Would you be complaining about this in an Amazon Employee Appreciation Day thread on a public forum? Would you resist admitting that you were acting hypocritically when someone pointed it out? Would you continue to resist while your bots came to your defense?

We'll get there.
 
I believe all NAOS is looking for here is for people to self-reflect.

I dont need his help to realize that the church and byu (things i support in some way) both do some things that i disagree with. Thats pretty obvious and im sure its that way for basically every person who supports almost anything.

iirc you are a catholic and support the church but i doubt you support everything that the church does.
 
I dont need his help to realize that the church and byu (things i support in some way) both do some things that i disagree with. Thats pretty obvious and im sure its that way for basically every person who supports almost anything.

iirc you are a catholic and support the church but i doubt you support everything that the church does.

I pretty much don’t support anything about Catholicism. Definitely not a catholic lol.
 
I pretty much don’t support anything about Catholicism. Definitely not a catholic lol.

Fair enough. Something, anything else you support then probably supports or does something you dont agree with.

Im sure that whatever political party you are or whatever politician you vote for supports or does something that you dont support.
 
Many churches also receive federal funds. MY point about the constitution is, it isn't just about what the gov't can't do. The constitution keeps the gov't from endorsing a particular religion. So there is protection for religion and from religion and that is what the wall of separation is about. I was never saying that the constitution had separation of church in it. However, if you only protect religious freedom then you have theocracy. The Mormon church paid fines for their involvement in Gay Marriage fight. They crossed the line when they used money to try to defeat the bill. For many non members Utah is as close to as a theocracy as you can get. I know a lot of mormons who don't feel that way because they support the church but if you are in the minority it certainly seems like the church has too much influence on political decisions made in the state. Do I think the mormon church is the only church who does this? Nope, Catholics, evangelicals etc do it. It is a major concern of my when viewing what is going on in this country.
The original premise was separate of church and state, and the church not getting involved in political matters (i.e. marijuana) because it would be a violation of said separation. The constitution in no way prohibits religious groups, or any other private groups, from getting involved politically. The idea that an entity is taxed for political involvement does not make said involvement illegal or unconstitutional. Being personally opposed to that is a totally separate matter. The bottom line was that the idea of a separation of church (or any other private groups, as you allude to above) and state doesn't preclude lobbying or political involvement/influence from said groups.
 
Other Christians believe that Joseph Smith was a con man that "translated" the book of Mormon using magic stones in a hat in the same way that he tricked farmers out of money in upstate New York by "glass looking" to find treasure. Essentially these other Christian religions refuse to expand Christianity to mean those who have rejected orthodox Christian beliefs for what they believe is a nineteenth-century made up, heretical theology.

You mean, they prefer the third-century, made up, heretical theology based on a failed first-century prophet and apocalyptic preacher to the one from the nineteenth century? How odd.
 
You mean, they prefer the third-century, made up, heretical theology based on a failed first-century prophet and apocalyptic preacher to the one from the nineteenth century? How odd.

Exactly. It is odd. Once everyone comes to the realization that Scientology is the only true religion we will all be better off. Once Xenu escapes from the electric mountain trap holding him, we are all ****ed.
 
Would you be complaining about this in an Amazon Employee Appreciation Day thread on a public forum? Would you resist admitting that you were acting hypocritically when someone pointed it out? Would you continue to resist while your bots came to your defense?

We'll get there.
General conference is a far cry from an 'appreciation day' of any kind. It is a forum the church uses to talk about current events (although I don't know if they brought up this particular issue) a better comparison might be a thread on an Amazon keynote event.

In any case I don't think the venue is particularly relevant to your argument. And wasn't brought up by you initially either.

As for his resisting, I think he's simply protesting because literally everyone is guilty of these kind of small hypocrisies. Plus you were (and continue to be) a dick about it.
 
So this compromise bill seems like it simply makes less people qualify to get medical marijuana (this is a negative for me), makes it harder for a distributor to distribute it, limits the number of dispensaries/pharmacies (the compromise bill marijuana actually has to be distributed by a pharmacy), Doesn't allow people to grow their own (this is allowed under prop 2 and is a huge sticking point for me), allows you to possess less (i think, im a little foggy on that), and does not allow you to use edibles or vape/smoke it as buds (this is a huge sticking point for me as well).

So i mean im sure this will be pretty predictable answer from me but it seems like the compromise bill is simply put, more restrictive (no surprise there, i figured it would be before i even read about it). I think that marijuana should be legal to anyone for any reason and already thought prop 2 was too restrictive and regulated but its a start so i will vote for it. If prop 2 didn't exist and only this compromise bill was all we got i would vote for it too cause both are better than nothing.

I think i should be able to grow my own or buy it from wherever (walmart, 7-11 or whatever) with age restrictions and I should be able to use it where and how i want as long as im not driving.


Btw, and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I read a bunch of articles in time magazine about medical MJ and found that the things it works best for are rhuematoid (?) arthritis, migraines (very effective), dementia (very effective), insomnia, nasuea, loss of appetite, and there were a few others that im forgetting. Things that its not so great for: Sharp intense pain (not terribly great for any form of pain but is somewhat effective for more minor pains), anxiety (i know for a fact it works for some people but studies show that it isnt very effective for anxiety overall), glaucoma (this one was suprising to me. Basically if you have glaucoma it said that you are much better off going to a doctor and getting a different type medicine than using MJ cause it doesn't last long enough) and a few others im forgetting as well.

All of that is beside the point imo though. I want to use it cause i like to, not cause i need to, and it doesn't hurt anyone. I should be able to grow it myself (what i would prefer to do) or buy it from a business and use it how I want when I want as long as im not driving under the influence or using it at or right before work.
Thanks for your perspective!
 
Fair enough. Something, anything else you support then probably supports or does something you dont agree with.

Im sure that whatever political party you are or whatever politician you vote for supports or does something that you dont support.

Without a doubt.

Always important to know what that is, and have an internal/external debate about whether you can handle that hypocrisy or not. Where’s the line? Do you care about marijuana enough to make you stop supporting BYU? What would the LDS church have to do in regards to marijuana to make you stop supporting BYU?

I’m not asking you to answer those questions of course, but those are the types of things you should ask yourself. Never know, the day might come.
 
So this compromise bill seems like it simply makes less people qualify to get medical marijuana (this is a negative for me), makes it harder for a distributor to distribute it, limits the number of dispensaries/pharmacies (the compromise bill marijuana actually has to be distributed by a pharmacy), Doesn't allow people to grow their own (this is allowed under prop 2 and is a huge sticking point for me), allows you to possess less (i think, im a little foggy on that), and does not allow you to use edibles or vape/smoke it as buds (this is a huge sticking point for me as well).

So i mean im sure this will be pretty predictable answer from me but it seems like the compromise bill is simply put, more restrictive (no surprise there, i figured it would be before i even read about it). I think that marijuana should be legal to anyone for any reason and already thought prop 2 was too restrictive and regulated but its a start so i will vote for it. If prop 2 didn't exist and only this compromise bill was all we got i would vote for it too cause both are better than nothing.

I think i should be able to grow my own or buy it from wherever (walmart, 7-11 or whatever) with age restrictions and I should be able to use it where and how i want as long as im not driving.


Btw, and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I read a bunch of articles in time magazine about medical MJ and found that the things it works best for are rhuematoid (?) arthritis, migraines (very effective), dementia (very effective), insomnia, nasuea, loss of appetite, and there were a few others that im forgetting. Things that its not so great for: Sharp intense pain (not terribly great for any form of pain but is somewhat effective for more minor pains), anxiety (i know for a fact it works for some people but studies show that it isnt very effective for anxiety overall), glaucoma (this one was suprising to me. Basically if you have glaucoma it said that you are much better off going to a doctor and getting a different type medicine than using MJ cause it doesn't last long enough) and a few others im forgetting as well.

All of that is beside the point imo though. I want to use it cause i like to, not cause i need to, and it doesn't hurt anyone. I should be able to grow it myself (what i would prefer to do) or buy it from a business and use it how I want when I want as long as im not driving under the influence or using it at or right before work.
Oh, if it says it has to be dispensed by a pharmacy then it's full on fake BS. Pharmacies will not distribute something that is federally illegal.

So this is fake medical MJ. A complete non-starter. If this is what we get there will effectively be NO medical MJ in Utah.

PROP 2 MUST PASS!
 
The thing that makes this whole hypocrisy thing even more silly is that it's regarding fish's fandom of a sports team, something which is inherently irrational in the first place.
 
NAOS watches advertisements on Jazz games and lines the Millers’ pockets.

The Millers contribute to the local economy and enable Jason to create JFC.

JFC enforces and upholds NAOS’ ban.

NAOS supports his own ban.
 
General conference is a far cry from an 'appreciation day' of any kind. It is a forum the church uses to talk about current events (although I don't know if they brought up this particular issue) a better comparison might be a thread on an Amazon keynote event.

In any case I don't think the venue is particularly relevant to your argument. And wasn't brought up by you initially either.

As for his resisting, I think he's simply protesting because literally everyone is guilty of these kind of small hypocrisies. Plus you were (and continue to be) a dick about it.
Hair splitting. You’re starting to get my point, it seems.... but you also love the feeling of having your heels dug in so deep.

Also, of course I didn’t bring it up initially. I saw something and responded to it.
 
The thing that makes this whole hypocrisy thing even more silly is that it's regarding fish's fandom of a sports team, something which is inherently irrational in the first place.
So, are you saying that when you become aware that something with a non-rational or irrational root is blocking the progress of a rational desire, you should simply say, “Well, damn, no sense looking into this rational desire any further since my non-rationality or irrationality is immutable... too bad it’s helping to block the progress of my rational desire...”?
 
Last edited:
So, are you saying that when you become aware that something with a non-rational or irrational root is blocking a rational desire, you should simply say, “Well, damn, no sense looking into this rational desire any further since my non-rationality or irrationality is immutable... too bad it’s helping to block the progress of my rational desire...”?
I'm saying that it's not reasonable to expect some to rationalize their way out of something they didn't rationalize themselves into.

Also, let's keep it 100 here, if Fish decides to stop spending money on BYU sports, or I stop spending money on the Jazz, it is going to have absolutely zero impact on the respective owners ability to spend their money however they wish. So it would really end up as a symbolic gesture, and we'd each miss out on something we get a lot of enjoyment out of.
 
I'm saying that it's not reasonable to expect some to rationalize their way out of something they didn't rationalize themselves into.

That's super cynical. And wrong. Evidence of your error is everywhere. It isn't always easy, but we are not slaves to irrational or non-rational desire. I'll be the first to stand up and say that the powers of rationality are over-stated in mass culture; but your position is hogwash, so I'll defend rationality.

Also, let's keep it 100 here, if Fish decides to stop spending money on BYU sports, or I stop spending money on the Jazz, it is going to have absolutely zero impact on the respective owners ability to spend their money however they wish. So it would really end up as a symbolic gesture, and we'd each miss out on something we get a lot of enjoyment out of.

Zero impact is also incorrect. And your fatalism here matches your fatalism above.

"The Bosses are going to do what the Bosses are going to do..... may as well slog along day-to-day and look at porn during my lunch break.... Something in me really desires it..."
 
Top