The burger caused me emotional distress and will have consumed the rest of my life since casting longing eyes on it. If the burger will not be mine, then I need to exact my revenge on it!!!
Some burgers you just can't get out of your head, like those extra tasty ones from Walla Walla, Price, and Bakersfield, even if more than half a century has passed by. Thankfully, I never let my burger longing become a full-time obsession.
As far as remuneration, those burgers owe me nothing for the pleasant eating memories. But even if I went crazy over them, it would be my own neurosis.
Why is the general tenor of this board becoming mean and undesirable?
I dunno, but the circle of people contributing to it has shrunk as it has.
The average age of the forum also appears to be quite high. I would hope that as many posters ease into retirement, they spend a lot more time on more valuable endeavors than debating Mormonism or soaking in the latest internet drama.
The average age of the forum also appears to be quite high. I would hope that as many posters ease into retirement, they spend a lot more time on more valuable endeavors than debating Mormonism or soaking in the latest internet drama.
What debate? I think the debating Mormonism part ended a long time ago. MG2.0 is probably the only person here who even qualifies as a more or less conventional apologist.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
The average age of the forum also appears to be quite high. I would hope that as many posters ease into retirement, they spend a lot more time on more valuable endeavors than debating Mormonism or soaking in the latest internet drama.
Senior posters benefit from board participation since it keeps their mind active. As active Mormons, they kept a lot of dissonance bottled up inside and the later years are an excellent time to purge such dissonance. This participation can stand as an alternative to early dinners at the Golden Corral.
This reminds of a lawsuit I saw once. A woman was walking out of a small retail store in a strip mall. The sidewalk was about an inch lower than the floor in her store, which causes a minor tripping hazard.
One day, a woman was walking out of the store and she tripped. She fell, broke several bones, had multiple complications, ended up having multiple hospital stays, and never really recovered. It turns out that in addition to being 150 pounds overweight, she had extremely brittle bones and a screwed up immune system that couldn't properly deal with the injury. The result were medical bills and disability damages worth several hundred thousand dollars.
So who is liable? On the one hand, I can see why the store owner would be liable--he did have the tripping hazard in his store. But on the other hand, it wasn't his fault that this particular customer was so freakishly suceptible to severe damage that causes at most a harmless stumble to 99.999% of the population.
So, your point is that if the victim can be defined as being "freakishly susceptible" to sexual harassment, that should mitigate the charge of sexual harassment?
in my opinion, if a person sexually harasses another, their own behavior should be the deciding point, not how well or how badly their victim responds to the initial damage.
This reminds of a lawsuit I saw once. A woman was walking out of a small retail store in a strip mall. The sidewalk was about an inch lower than the floor in her store, which causes a minor tripping hazard.
One day, a woman was walking out of the store and she tripped. She fell, broke several bones, had multiple complications, ended up having multiple hospital stays, and never really recovered. It turns out that in addition to being 150 pounds overweight, she had extremely brittle bones and a screwed up immune system that couldn't properly deal with the injury. The result were medical bills and disability damages worth several hundred thousand dollars.
So who is liable? On the one hand, I can see why the store owner would be liable--he did have the tripping hazard in his store. But on the other hand, it wasn't his fault that this particular customer was so freakishly suceptible to severe damage that causes at most a harmless stumble to 99.999% of the population.
If John Dehlin sexually harassed someone it’s not their fault for being susceptible. That’s just victim blaming.
Responsible businesses put caution tape on steps like that all the time. In my opinion Dehlin’s affair should be similarly public as a warning to any women around him who aren’t already aware.
Last edited by drumdude on Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Moksha, Walla Walla? are you just repeating an odd name or have you actually visited the praised IceBurg hamburger stand in Walla Walla? In years past it would get nominated as outstanding regional restaurant.(park a block away for dining)
The town has become a wine destination so the IceBurg now has competition from fancier eateries.
Some burgers you just can't get out of your head, like those extra tasty ones from Walla Walla, Price, and Bakersfield, even if more than half a century has passed by. Thankfully, I never let my burger longing become a full-time obsession.
As far as remuneration, those burgers owe me nothing for the pleasant eating memories. But even if I went crazy over them, it would be my own neurosis.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
