rcrocket wrote:If my son, whom I support, spend money on, pay for an education, pay for food, room and board, went out in public and humiliated me and my daughter, and one of my better friends found out about it, I'd insist upon knowing about it.
Unless one is monitoring or getting feedback due to a very specific agreement and arrangement like employment, terms of paying back a sum agreed upon, it's no good. You can't ever make someone close to you feel like all the things you did for them were conditioned on certain expectations you had for their life or behavior.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Is anybody else wondering if DCP sent a blind carbon copy of the GoodK emails to the Skinny-L list? It seems clear that the Skinny List functions as a forum for ridiculing and attacking critics. So, was it used to slam GoodK as well, and to issue a "show of force" in favor of Mopologetic loyalty?
rcrocket wrote:If my son, whom I support, spend money on, pay for an education, pay for food, room and board, went out in public and humiliated me and my daughter, and one of my better friends found out about it, I'd insist upon knowing about it.
Your son owes you nothing. You, the parent, owed your son, just as he will owe his son or daughter, and so forth. What kind of father are you to think your son owes you for something any parent would gladly do? Sad, but I guess this is consistent with the "conditional love" theme spewed in the Church these days. I really feel sorry for you, Bob.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Mister Scratch wrote:Let's face facts here: the real reason Bob is so upset about all of this has to do with the fact that it seriously undermines his anti-anonymity campaign. He wants to continue railing against those of us who rightly value our anonymity, and yet he has demonstrated that the reason he wants people to use there own names is so that he can attack them, possibly even doing damage to their family relationships.
I think you're spot on. Bob and DCP can bark all the platitudes they want about the evils of anonymity, but this thread is the perfect illustration of their true agenda: obtain a poster's true indentity and ruin him/her. The Two Bishops are pathetic ... and deserve each other.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
rcrocket wrote:If my son, whom I support, spend money on, pay for an education, pay for food, room and board, . . .
DAMN, some people have life easy.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
No, it was clear that he was talking about his own son. His son has life very, very easy, not you.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
rcrocket wrote:If my son, whom I support, spend money on, pay for an education, pay for food, room and board, went out in public and humiliated me and my daughter, and one of my better friends found out about it, I'd insist upon knowing about it.
I doubt your son will be doing this. He obviously has alot to lose.
by the way, it is likely that without your knowledge your kids have in the past, are now or will in the future do things that you are very much opposed to. How much do you want to know?
Hopefully, you're not divulging confessed "sins" of teenagers under your stewardship to their parents.