Sexual Abuse Allegations

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Haruo » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:29 am

KeithE wrote:
Haruo wrote:In the south do you all use "to go south" in the sense I'm used to hearing it, i.e. "to deteriorate"? In any case I think what people generally would like to see is a situation where when their health goes south their individual financial well-being and that of their immediate family members doesn't go south with it, and they don't reach a point where the cost of living is simply not affordable, so dying is the best out. Most of the industrialized world and much of the non-industrialized world manages this better than we do. Trump supporters by and large don't realize this.

Yes I’ve head and used “go south” as meaning get worse. But it is “ya’ll” not “ you all”.

And yes Trump supporters as well as establishment Republicans deny the extreme “southness” of the American health care system(s).

I'm used to seeing "y'all" more often than "ya'll" (which looks like a contraction of "you will" to me). But in any event all these things are dialectal variants serving more or less the same purpose as "you guys" (or "youse guys") or "you folks". But I was wondering about the PC quotient of using "to go south" in the above sense when speaking to southerners... would it be viewed as derogatory, regionalist, unacceptable? Not worried, just wondering. Scandihoovians don't take or give much offense over such stuff.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby JE Pettibone » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:57 am

Haruo wrote:
KeithE wrote:
Haruo wrote:In the south do you all use "to go south" in the sense I'm used to hearing it, i.e. "to deteriorate"? In any case I think what people generally would like to see is a situation where when their health goes south their individual financial well-being and that of their immediate family members doesn't go south with it, and they don't reach a point where the cost of living is simply not affordable, so dying is the best out. Most of the industrialized world and much of the non-industrialized world manages this better than we do. Trump supporters by and large don't realize this.

Yes I’ve head and used “go south” as meaning get worse. But it is “ya’ll” not “ you all”.

And yes Trump supporters as well as establishment Republicans deny the extreme “southness” of the American health care system(s).

I'm used to seeing "y'all" more often than "ya'll" (which looks like a contraction of "you will" to me). But in any event all these things are dialectal variants serving more or less the same purpose as "you guys" (or "youse guys") or "you folks". But I was wondering about the PC quotient of using "to go south" in the above sense when speaking to southerners... would it be viewed as derogatory, regionalist, unacceptable? Not worried, just wondering. Scandihoovians don't take or give much offense over such stuff.


Ed: After all Hauro, more than half the earth is south of the southern most parts of the US.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Jim » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:10 am

Haruo wrote:
KeithE wrote:
Haruo wrote:In the south do you all use "to go south" in the sense I'm used to hearing it, i.e. "to deteriorate"? In any case I think what people generally would like to see is a situation where when their health goes south their individual financial well-being and that of their immediate family members doesn't go south with it, and they don't reach a point where the cost of living is simply not affordable, so dying is the best out. Most of the industrialized world and much of the non-industrialized world manages this better than we do. Trump supporters by and large don't realize this.

Yes I’ve head and used “go south” as meaning get worse. But it is “ya’ll” not “ you all”.

And yes Trump supporters as well as establishment Republicans deny the extreme “southness” of the American health care system(s).

I'm used to seeing "y'all" more often than "ya'll" (which looks like a contraction of "you will" to me). But in any event all these things are dialectal variants serving more or less the same purpose as "you guys" (or "youse guys") or "you folks". But I was wondering about the PC quotient of using "to go south" in the above sense when speaking to southerners... would it be viewed as derogatory, regionalist, unacceptable? Not worried, just wondering. Scandihoovians don't take or give much offense over such stuff.

I'm basically a Mason-Dixon-Line guy but more southern than ridiculous (aka northerner). The World Series has gone south this year (southern California and Texas) and everyone is happy since playing baseball in Boston or Toronto in the potential snow is a bummer. Some folks claim that going South is the same as going to the dawgs but going North is like going to Chicago—going to the hawgs...or the morgue. I spent boot-camp in Wisconsin in the now-ancient 40s in October/November and escaped freezing to death by contracting pneumonia and spending 2.5 weeks in sick-bay, thus dodging both KP and a hunk of the whole miserable time-frame. I spent the following Christmas-New Year holiday-week off the coast of Greenland (before AlGore pronounced it melting) and discovered that going South was like deliverance from a universal refrigerator—ice-cube to warm blood. The best thing to ever come out of the South was/is peanut butter (RIP Carver), the JIF brand made right here in Lexington,Ky., where statues of Breckinridge and Morgan have just been removed from the old courthouse grounds although Jefferson Davis made it through the current statue genocides and stands yet in Frankfort, the capitol, with his monument intact in southern Kentucky, a micro-edition of the Washington Monument. Lest there be ridicule, My g-grandfather and two great-uncles fought for the Union.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:44 pm

Jim wrote:I'm basically a Mason-Dixon-Line guy but more southern than ridiculous (aka northerner).
;-)
Pretty sure I had ancestors in both armies.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby David Flick » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:39 am

Jim wrote:I'm basically a Mason-Dixon-Line guy but more southern than ridiculous (aka northerner). ;-)
    Haruo wrote:Pretty sure I had ancestors in both armies.
      Ditto here. I can confirm ancestors in both armies. Oddly, these ancesters fighting on both sides were brothers. On my mother's side of the family tree, there was a family of four brothers (living in Missouri), two of which fought for the Union and two fought for the Confederacy. Tragically, one of the Union brothers shot and killed a Confederate brother. My direct linage traces to one of the brothers on the Union side.

      Semi-interesting fact: The only Native American on either side of the Civil War to rise to a brigadier general's rank during the war was Stand Watie. A Cherokee (my tribe) born in Calhoon, GA, he and his family, and many other Cherokee emigrated to Indian Territory (eastern present-day Oklahoma). He commanded the First Indian Brigade of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi, composed of two regiments of Mounted Rifles and three battalions of Cherokee, Seminole and Osage infantry. These troops were based south of the Canadian River, and periodically crossed the river into Union territory. The Canadian River splits Indian Territory almost in half north and south.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Jim » Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:08 pm

I can confirm the service of my forbears in the Union Army but can't confirm what my wife has always been told, namely that her great-grandfather was a Union officer but his wife was a confederate sympathizer who worked in molding bullets for the South. Only in the border states! I attended a funeral for a distant relative in California back in the 90s and the first thing said to me by her son (whom I had never met) was something like “Yep, you look just like one,” referring to the Indians (okay, native-Americans). I've been told that I have a significant amount of Indian blood account my maternal great-grandmother being perhaps either whole- or half-Indian. I've read enough about the subject to believe it and figure that in the northern-most pathways of the “Trail of Tears,” which I believe probably meandered through southeast Kentucky, some of the captives simply drifted away, as they did in the rest of the Appalachians.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Haruo » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:57 pm

David Flick wrote:The only Native American on either side of the Civil War to rise to a brigadier general's rank during the war was Stand Watie. A Cherokee (my tribe) born in Calhoon, GA, he and his family, and many other Cherokee emigrated to Indian Territory (eastern present-day Oklahoma). He commanded the First Indian Brigade of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi, composed of two regiments of Mounted Rifles and three battalions of Cherokee, Seminole and Osage infantry. These troops were based south of the Canadian River, and periodically crossed the river into Union territory. The Canadian River splits Indian Territory almost in half north and south. [/color][/list][/list]

You have to look at the Cherokee Wikipedia to find that his names in Cherokee were ᏕᎦᏔᎦ and ᏕᎦᏙᎦ ᏩᏗ.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Jim » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Never a dull moment in Ky. Judge resigns over religious convictions: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODN/LexingtonHeraldLeader/default.aspx.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Haruo » Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:20 am

Jim, this is where your link led me: Image

You're talking about the anti-gay-adoptions judge, I imagine. Here's a link to an actual article about the matter.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Jim » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:46 am

Yeah, you're right. I brought up the paper itself meaning the turning of pages. Sorry. The article helps explode the myth that the USA is a Christian nation. Actually, just on the basis of this article and the abortion of 60 million since 1973 indicate that the USA is actually far more heathen, but then we knew that, didn't we? Tampering with God's design for the propagation of the race is blasphemy, no matter how governmentally legal it is.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Haruo » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:52 pm

I'm not so sure God's plan for human propagation is all that simplistic, and I'm also not all that sure what the supposed ethics violations of the judge were (I've only skimmed the particular story). If all he did was recuse himself (or try to) from cases where he believed his own religious beliefs would preclude his objective fairness as a judge under the laws of the land, then I think that's laudable. Certainly better than pretending to uphold the laws of the land while actually just upholding one's personal beliefs. In my opinion. I can see how one could take the opposite position. One of my failings, the ability to see the other side of all these gray issues.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Jim » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:41 pm

Gray issues don't have sides. They're subject to relativity, not substance. In the matter of same-sex marriage and the slaying of the unborn, there are only black or white. Just like its being impossible to be partly pregnant, it's impossible for a fetus to be half-dead while the fetus-carrier decides whether the little inconvenient thing (like an appendix) is half-alive and therefore eligible to be born. When two men conceive a child, the gray area will be abolished. Until then, same-sex marriage is blasphemy in spades. There's always cloning, of course, but even—especially—that is uber-apostasy, in direct contravention of Nature's (God's) plan. God didn't tell Adam to be fruitful and multiply and Jesus didn't say that a man must leave himself and be wedded to himself and be fruitful and multiply.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Sandy » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:20 pm

Jim wrote:Yeah, you're right. I brought up the paper itself meaning the turning of pages. Sorry. The article helps explode the myth that the USA is a Christian nation. Actually, just on the basis of this article and the abortion of 60 million since 1973 indicate that the USA is actually far more heathen, but then we knew that, didn't we? Tampering with God's design for the propagation of the race is blasphemy, no matter how governmentally legal it is.


Surprised to see you are in agreement with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Haruo » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:08 pm

Jim wrote:Gray issues don't have sides. They're subject to relativity, not substance. In the matter of same-sex marriage and the slaying of the unborn, there are only black or white. Just like its being impossible to be partly pregnant, it's impossible for a fetus to be half-dead while the fetus-carrier decides whether the little inconvenient thing (like an appendix) is half-alive and therefore eligible to be born. When two men conceive a child, the gray area will be abolished. Until then, same-sex marriage is blasphemy in spades. There's always cloning, of course, but even—especially—that is uber-apostasy, in direct contravention of Nature's (God's) plan. God didn't tell Adam to be fruitful and multiply and Jesus didn't say that a man must leave himself and be wedded to himself and be fruitful and multiply.

I just don't think propagation is so central to God's purpose. It's a means, not an end, in my view. And I am convinced that many areas that you or I see as white or black or vice versa are actually gray.

And it won't surprise me to live to see two men conceive a child. Well, okay, so it will surprise me. Just not as much as I gather it would you.

Will the abolition be retroactive, or will those who did it wrong (in you and God's view) up until that crucial moment be damned? Was anyone saved prior to Golgotha?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Sandy » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:12 pm

Jim wrote:Gray issues don't have sides. They're subject to relativity, not substance. In the matter of same-sex marriage and the slaying of the unborn, there are only black or white. Just like its being impossible to be partly pregnant, it's impossible for a fetus to be half-dead while the fetus-carrier decides whether the little inconvenient thing (like an appendix) is half-alive and therefore eligible to be born. When two men conceive a child, the gray area will be abolished. Until then, same-sex marriage is blasphemy in spades. There's always cloning, of course, but even—especially—that is uber-apostasy, in direct contravention of Nature's (God's) plan. God didn't tell Adam to be fruitful and multiply and Jesus didn't say that a man must leave himself and be wedded to himself and be fruitful and multiply.


I agree with most of what you say. Science has discovered a lot of information related to the processes of human conception and pre-birth development, but it has not yet been able to create fertilization and cell division without the natural processes. I believe those will remain a mystery. The argument that Jesus didn't say anything about same-gender marriage ignores his words recorded in scripture, when he cites Genesis regarding marriage being between one man and one woman. Yeah, its in a passage where he is referencing divorce, but it is a definitive statement, and the more moderate to liberal clergy and theologians who ignore it, or treat it that way are violating their own rules of Biblical Hermeneutics to arrive at that conclusion, something they often accuse their more conservative brethren of doing to arrive at their conclusions. Of course, there are those who cite the references in scripture to polygamy to weaken the interpretation applied by Jesus, but the only examples where polygamy is at the center of a spiritual principle in the Old Testament are where it interfered with, or hindered God's will, not where it was advanced.

Haruo wrote:Was anyone saved prior to Golgotha?


That's a good point, and a key one. There was a covenant under which people were saved prior to Golgotha, or at least, prior to the resurrection of Jesus. It was God's covenant with Israel, through which salvation was available. It was open to non-Jews, through a conversion process. Following the resurrection, it is the same covenant, but the covenant people are the church, the ecclesia, not a "nation." It hasn't been offered to a nation, and a nation, which is not even defined in the same terms as it was in the Old Testament, cannot decide that it will engage in a covenant with God. So while America can be a nation influenced by Christians, it cannot be a "Christian nation." We are certainly not the only country in the world that has been influenced by Christians, and by Christianity, nor are we the "most influenced" by it. All of that requires subjective evaluation.

What that means, in a republic with a constitution based on a foundation of guaranteed individual rights, is that people have the right to choose a lifestyle that is free from the influence of Christian faith, and they can live their lives in a way that reflects a lack of belief in God, or of any kind of theological system acknowledging a supernatural, spiritual being. And what I see in the New Testament is that the church's pathway to influence over the culture is through exercising its resources given to its members in the form of spiritual gifts, preaching the gospel leading to conversion. Putting these principles into the form of laws that forbid certain kinds of behavior may limit the behavior, at least publicly, but it doesn't lead to spiritual transformation. That takes a genuine, free will commitment rooted in conviction leading to repentance.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Sexual Abuse Allegations

Postby Jim » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:02 pm

Haruo wrote:
Jim wrote:Gray issues don't have sides. They're subject to relativity, not substance. In the matter of same-sex marriage and the slaying of the unborn, there are only black or white. Just like its being impossible to be partly pregnant, it's impossible for a fetus to be half-dead while the fetus-carrier decides whether the little inconvenient thing (like an appendix) is half-alive and therefore eligible to be born. When two men conceive a child, the gray area will be abolished. Until then, same-sex marriage is blasphemy in spades. There's always cloning, of course, but even—especially—that is uber-apostasy, in direct contravention of Nature's (God's) plan. God didn't tell Adam to be fruitful and multiply and Jesus didn't say that a man must leave himself and be wedded to himself and be fruitful and multiply.


I just don't think propagation is so central to God's purpose. Then why saddle Adam and Eve with this inconvenience or why make any pronouncements relating to further population? It's a means, not an end, in my view. A means to what? And I am convinced that many areas that you or I see as white or black or vice versa are actually gray. I didn't realize you saw anything other than gray. Imagine how a platoon would function if all orders were just in shades of gray.

And it won't surprise me to live to see two men conceive a child. Surely you jest. Any idea about the mechanics? Well, okay, so it will surprise me. Just not as much as I gather it would you. I get it--my lack of sophistication--concerning the god SCIENCE. In your face, God!

Will the abolition be retroactive, or will those who did it wrong (in you and God's view) up until that crucial moment be damned? Was anyone saved prior to Golgotha?

Sorry...no idea as to what abolition references. Anyway, abolition could hardly be retroactive since it applies to something already abolished and therefore not subject to more of same. No response to Golgotha (if any) until you define "saved."
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Previous

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests