UK to ban depictions of traditional mothers in ads.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

You will argue that the difference is that tithing is voluntary. I would argue that to a believing Saint who wants to attend the temple and gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God, it is not voluntary. It is a requirement. You can of course withold your tithing, but there will be serious repercussions.
Likewise you can withold your taxes or social security contributions from the government. You are free to do that, so long as you are then prepared to embrace the consequence

Here endeth the lesson.

I have been amazed at your sophistry... and your arrogance. You do not honestly try and make your point. you pretend to be for one thing while dishonestly describing it on the fringes as another. And you never answer simple direct honest questions posed by me, whether it be in asking you questions as to whether you believe that problems and losses of freedom in either of our countries would be solved with more government or less government, whether you are for or against government income redistribution programs that are forced on a whole populous, rather than directed to the needy, or even more specifically to whether you are for or against specific programs like NHS, or SS (or the British version of SS). I don't think these questions are confusing. They are not insulting, they weren't asked just once so you might have missed them. I can only conclude that you avoid them so that you can dance around with jots and tittles to jerk David13 around.

In giving your "lesson", you actually completely distort the Church welfare system. Normally I would think this would be due to ignorance, but from your previous posts, I would think that you would have a better understanding than you seem to show in lecturing David13.

Now for YOUR LESSON!

1) Church welfare does NOT come from tithing, it comes from Fast Offerings. I suppose if needs are high enough in the whole church that Fast Offerings don't cover it, then some tithing may be diverted to help, I don't know, but generally the money comes form Fast Offerings which are voluntary and the amounts are up to the members.

2) Just as you have dodged and weaved in the past, the assistance that the Church welfare program provides are highly "needs" and "means" based. The Bishop must ascertain whether there is a need for assistance, Also a larger portion of the Bishops time and efforts are directed towards helping people to overcome whatever it is that makes them needy, rather than encouraging this to be a permanent solution.

It is obvious that any charitable assistance involves money going from the haves to the have not. However, this is nothing like forced government participation in programs designed as a one size fits all redistribution system.

So how about it. DO you have the cojones and integrity to actually step up to the plate and actually honestly address the differences between various socialist redistribution policies in Britain, and the US, and and a more Libertarian (your own claim), free market approach to to the government role in society? Or are you going to just take shots at jots and tittles of what David13, may have worded inelegantly to just annoy him and play word games?

Well, will you step up to the plate, and be clear and honest?

Regards,

George clay

[David13]

There is the real problem right there.

Robin Hood doesn't know the difference between socialism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Incredible.
dc

Dc, listen and learn.
In my ward we have about 100 active members. Some of them are full tithe payers, some are not. The tithe "take " from my ward is not very high.
A Utah ward may have 500 active members, most of whom will be full tithe payers. The tithe "take" from that ward will be high.

We have a building. It needs to be maintained, heated, cleaned etc. We need resources in order to have the ward function and meet the needs of the Saints. This all has to be paid for.
However, we don't raise enough tithing to do that.
The ward in Utah raises plenty to run it's own functions, but also a large surplus.
In effect, the corporate church requires the funds to be evened out, so that the rich Utah ward is, in effect, subsidising my ward. If you were to visit each ward you would not notice any difference apart from the numbers in attendance. It's not as if we can't have the heating on or have no hymn books.

No one was asked if this was ok. There was no vote on it, and there is no indication on the tithing slip that this is what you are signing up to.
In fact, none of the tithing stays in the ward or even the stake. It is whisked off to SLC in the blink of an eye. Only a portion is returned in the form of a budget for the ward. The budget is set by Church HQ, with no input from the local church.

So we have a large governing body, requiring contributions from the people, and re-distributing the wealth as it sees fit, and the contributors themselves have absolutely no say in the matter - they are not even consulted!

You will argue that the difference is that tithing is voluntary. I would argue that to a believing Saint who wants to attend the temple and gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God, it is not voluntary. It is a requirement. You can of course withold your tithing, but there will be serious repercussions.
Likewise you can withold your taxes or social security contributions from the government. You are free to do that, so long as you are then prepared to embrace the consequence

Here endeth the lesson.

There endeth the nonsense. One of the purest posts of nonsense possible.

Your tithing is voluntary. Your membership is voluntary. You are in the church of your own free will. That in no way shape or form is comparable to the government sentencing you to prison for not paying social security contributions. Your employer deducts them, no matter what you do.

It just shows your pure confusion about just about anything you see.

Religion and state are diametrically opposed, as a general rule.

Communism/socialism are the direct antithesis of religion. In communism/socialism the state is your God. You need no other God and frequently churches are closed so you can understand that. That is of course after the subjects have been disarmed.

To try to equate the two is just a basic misunderstanding of the whole situation.

I can't learn anything from someone who knows nothing. Or someone who has it a** backwards.
dc

[David13]

About social security.....

... I would vote to abolish it ...

Dc, please don't call me a liar, it makes you look bad.

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

[Robin Hood]

About social security.....

... I would vote to abolish it ...

Dc, please don't call me a liar, it makes you look bad.

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

[David13]

About social security.....

... I would vote to abolish it ...

Dc, please don't call me a liar, it makes you look bad.

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

Robin Hood
Just one lie you told was that I said I wanted to do away with social security. I said no such thing and even after I corrected you, you persisted.

Have you noticed anyone else posting here? GClayjr?

Yes, he mentioned your "dishonesty" and asked you to be "honest", or answer "honestly". So, am I the only one?

I know you did lie, and I don't squirm.

Are we brothers in the Gospel, or are you a statist? Is your god the government? Or are you a Latter Day Saint?

I ask seriously because you said the church is a socialist institution. It is not. It all depends on who, or what you worship. And you seem to like government a whole lot. But you are not clear on what is and what is not government and voluntary.

We are debating, we are not keeping company, and I ask you these things, because I do take care in the company I keep.

Does this help you?

[David13]

About social security.....

... I would vote to abolish it ...

Dc, please don't call me a liar, it makes you look bad.

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

Robin Hood
Let me put it another way. A simpler way.

What other jots and tittles have you got?

Are jots and tittles different than trolling?
dc

[Robin Hood]

Dc, You said you would vote to abolish social security. Then you said you never claimed you wanted social security abolished.
So I didn't lie and you jolly well know it!
Case concluded.

[David13]

Dc, You said you would vote to abolish social security. Then you said you never claimed you wanted social security abolished.
So I didn't lie and you jolly well know it!
Case concluded.

Robin Hood
Please stop telling lies like that about what I said.

It was Gclayjr who said that.

I said that would be fine with me IF they gave me back what I had contributed for the last 50 plus years.

Otherwise I'm against it.

You just can't read English, can you.
dc

[Robin Hood]

I do want to add a few word to what gclayjr posted.
About social security. I suppose George, like me, worked and paid into that system part of their wages or salary. I paid in more than 50 years. And they won't give me only part of my money back, a little at a time. Because they already gave my money to someone else, in most cases someone who paid nothing into the system.

So I would vote to abolish it ... IF they would give my money back. Which of course they would never do. Take my money for 50 years, actually more than 50 years, and I'm still paying into it, give my money to someone else, then cut me off with nothing? Not a good idea at all.

As to medicare, I also have that but I pay for it. I pay a lot of money every month for it, whether I use it or not. If I use it, I pay more.
And again, for more than 50 years I paid into that system for this .... care?
dc

The basis is, nothing is free. It's just someone else who pays. Or someone else who pays ... for you!

First line of the second paragraph.
That's twice you've accused me of lying when I wasn't.
I think an apology is in order dc.

I won't hold my breath though, I don't think you have it in you.
So I'll forgive you anyway.

P.S. Happy New Year dc.

[Silver Pie]

Silver Pie,

I think I would trust what Robin Hood says about seeing Russia and Germany and that they were not much different than the "free" countries. I have often wondered if we were being brainwashed into thinking we were "free" and that there really was no difference between the average USSR citizen and the average US citizen. Just because we think we are free doesn't mean we are.

Read my discussion earlier in this thread, about my working in the Czech Republic. There is a great difference, and it is obvious if you get a chance to see it.

Since you have worked there, and since you are from the same country I am (meaning only that we would share the same paradigms when it comes to what freedom is, whereas England, as you pointed out, has a somewhat different paradigm of that), I view you as a credible witness. Thank you.

[Silver Pie]

Dc, please don't call me a liar, it makes you look bad.

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

I think the problem is that Robin Hood said "could not" and DC read "would not". If someone cannot save, they cannot (there is no ability). If they will not save, that presupposes that they could if they wanted to do so.

[David13]

Dc, please don't call me a liar, it makes you look bad.

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

I think the problem is that Robin Hood said "could not" and DC read "would not". If someone cannot save, they cannot (there is no ability). If they will not save, that presupposes that they could if they wanted to do so.

Sigh.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference?
If I have nothing to save because I spend all my money on booze, doesn't that mean I cannot save? It certainly means I don't save, doesn't it?
If I have a very very very limited income, couldn't I save $2, somehow?

Isn't it just splitting hairs?
dc

[harakim]

As for your freedoms, what other nation on earth requires soon to be married couples to have a blood test?

A blood test is not required. I think maybe the ignorance pendulum swings both ways.

Robin Hood,
For instance I can choose the medical care for my little boy, and our Government (or the Crown if you want be nit picky), cannot deny me the opportunity seek out my own doctor and medicine to try and heal him , not use the full force of the government (excuse me the crown) to demand rthat I starve and kill him.

Actually, that is not true. You can choose or refuse any treatment you want as an adult. However, the doctors have the right to do whatever they want to your kids if they claim it's a medical necessity. Look it up. I have talked to a lawyer and researched this very topic in the last two months.

[Robin Hood]

Dc, please don't call me a liar, it makes you look bad.

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

I think the problem is that Robin Hood said "could not" and DC read "would not". If someone cannot save, they cannot (there is no ability). If they will not save, that presupposes that they could if they wanted to do so.

Thank you Silver Pie.
I have an autistic daughter.
She is 26 years old and cannot work. She is incapable of earning a living.
Therefore, she "could not" save anything. She depends completely upon us for all of her needs.
It is this kind of situation to which I was referring, and I think dc knew that (because it is what I said), but chose to ignore it in order to try to point score.

[David13]

Don't tell lies about what I said. If you hadn't, I wouldn't.
dc

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

I think the problem is that Robin Hood said "could not" and DC read "would not". If someone cannot save, they cannot (there is no ability). If they will not save, that presupposes that they could if they wanted to do so.

Thank you Silver Pie.
I have an autistic daughter.
She is 26 years old and cannot work. She is incapable of earning a living.
Therefore, she "could not" save anything. She depends completely upon us for all of her needs.
It is this kind of situation to which I was referring, and I think dc knew that (because it is what I said), but chose to ignore it in order to try to point score.

No, it was not obvious you had a personal slant to this issue. You had previously revealed no such thing that I recall.

But I'm glad you did now reveal this. I had no way to know this.

And I certainly would not want to debate with you whether it is morally appropriate for the government, or the family to support a 26 year old daughter who cannot earn a living.
dc

[Robin Hood]

Dc, anyone following this thread (and I don't think many are) can clearly see that I didn't lie and you falsely accused me of doing so. It's there in black and white, and you can wriggle and squirm all you like but the truth is I didn't lie and you know it.
As we are brothers in the gospel, that appears to make you "an accuser of the brethren".
Be careful of the company you keep.

I think the problem is that Robin Hood said "could not" and DC read "would not". If someone cannot save, they cannot (there is no ability). If they will not save, that presupposes that they could if they wanted to do so.

Thank you Silver Pie.
I have an autistic daughter.
She is 26 years old and cannot work. She is incapable of earning a living.
Therefore, she "could not" save anything. She depends completely upon us for all of her needs.
It is this kind of situation to which I was referring, and I think dc knew that (because it is what I said), but chose to ignore it in order to try to point score.

No, it was not obvious you had a personal slant to this issue. You had previously revealed no such thing that I recall.

But I'm glad you did now reveal this. I had no way to know this.

And I certainly would not want to debate with you whether it is morally appropriate for the government, or the family to support a 26 year old daughter who cannot earn a living.
dc

Well, as I said previously, and as Silver Pie so rightly pointed out, that is what I said.
With regard to my daughter, my wife and I support her. But there will come a day when we will be gone and that is when I expect the state to support her by providing her basic needs. I believe that is what civilized societies do. The strength of a nation can be measured by the way it treats it's weakest citizens.

Anyway, never mind. We're probably never going to agree on this.

[Benjamin_LK]

Nanette Newman, an actress who appeared in 1980s Fairy Liquid commercials, told the Daily Mail the ban is “ridiculously over the top”.

“What a bizarre world we live in where the adverts I starred in might today be considered harmful, yet it’s considered perfectly acceptable for women to be shown on mainstream TV having sex,” she told the Mail.

While campaigns to change the view of society presented in advertisements is intended to increase equality, it may be having the effect of skewing representations in a different way. Breitbart London reported in August a major survey of major advertising companies in Britain which found that businesses are over-representing ethnic minorities and homosexual in their marketing in order to ward off accusations of bigotry.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12 ... ar-gender/

Maybe the wrong side won the Cold War after all. At least the Soviets depicted women as mothers.

Interestingly enough they also ended up with a large proportion of their workforce being women as well as the first woman in space being Soviet.

[Silver Pie]

Sigh.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference?
If I have nothing to save because I spend all my money on booze, doesn't that mean I cannot save? It certainly means I don't save, doesn't it?
If I have a very very very limited income, couldn't I save $2, somehow?

Isn't it just splitting hairs?
dc

It seems it depends on the perspective of the person who read Robin Hood's post. You, with your life's experience, thought of those who could not because they wasted the money (which means they could have if they had chosen differently).

Me, with my life's experience supposed that those who could not would be those who honestly could not, no matter how much they scrimped and saved and starved to do so. Because "could not" implies an inability (there is no choice) and "would not" implies there is a choice. I know because I have been in financial situations many times where I could not buy enough food to keep myself healthy. There was no unwillingness involved. Rent and utilities had to come first. Now, you could argue that I could have chosen to have my electricity turned off or chosen to be homeless so that I could eat, and I concede that point. If we are going in that direction, perhaps Robin Hood's people could have done so, as long as they starved to death or went homeless.

[Silver Pie]

Thank you Silver Pie.
I have an autistic daughter.
She is 26 years old and cannot work. She is incapable of earning a living.
Therefore, she "could not" save anything. She depends completely upon us for all of her needs.
It is this kind of situation to which I was referring, and I think dc knew that (because it is what I said), but chose to ignore it in order to try to point score.

In that case, my comment above (to DC) is moot as your daughter couldn't earn even enough for rent or utilities. It is absolutely true that there are those who cannot, not even by any stretch of the imagination. And I think you did point out earlier those who absolutely could not work for money.