Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Katya wrote:

Craig Jessop wrote:

Katya wrote:https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67268/

I appreciated Eirene's answer to this question. I think that focusing on the results or effects of an action instead of on the action itself betrays a subtlety of judgement that I am trying to emulate, myself.

Yeah, I thought that Kirke's response was too black and white and heavy-handed. I think he's still set in the mission us vs. them mentality.

Mmm, I seem to remember him being pretty black-and-white before the mish, too.

Interestingly enough, I agree more with his ethics, though my reasons for doing so could not be more different.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67009/

I appreciated that these answers posted at all, and I appreciated the courage behind them.

TheBlackSheep wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67009/

I appreciated that these answers posted at all, and I appreciated the courage behind them.

Agreed.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67517/

I am deeply, deeply amused that P.D. Kirke does not like Utah with its "Mormons overrunning everything."

Katya wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67517/

I am deeply, deeply amused that P.D. Kirke does not like Utah with its "Mormons overrunning everything."

I want to transplant him to Capitol Hill, Seattle: for Science!

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67509/

That was a really nice, rational answer by Eirene about alcohol cooking out of food. I have heard this debate so many times and people rarely take into account the amount of alcohol involved. People freak out because there's put vanilla extract in something and it didn't cook for long enough for all of the alcohol to cook out, but there was only half a teaspoon in there to begin with!

NerdGirl wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67509/
That was a really nice, rational answer by Eirene . . .

Madam, saying "nice, rational answer" and "by Eirene" is redundant. The latter implies the former.

(In seriousness, it was a really good answer.)

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67189/

Gimgimno wrote:One major reason the LGBT movement gives the Church such a hard time is the fact that we use our own unique vocabulary and refer to homosexuality as a "tendency" and a "struggle." Framed in light of the gospel, that may be what it is, but saying "I struggle with same-gender attraction" sounds so petty and inconsequential that the gravity of your statement is lost. You're gay. You're telling them because you want their support. Say it like it is.

Nicely put. The phrase "same-gender attraction" has always bugged me, but the "petty and inconsequential" implication is an aspect I hadn't put my finger on, before.

Oh, God bless you, Gimgimno.

Katya wrote: The phrase "same-gender attraction" has always bugged me, but the "petty and inconsequential" implication is an aspect I hadn't put my finger on, before.

Along with the reasons he listed in his post and that, same-sex attraction tends to be paired in the writings with "struggling with" (whereas most people after coming out are struggling with the reactions of people they should be able to count on, not struggling with being gay), it is paired with church quotes about being able to change it or therapy it out of you (most LDS gay people have tried to pray it away, trust me, it isn't happening), and most of all, when LDS people refuse to call people who identify as gay "gay", it disrespects lived experiences--the word you want to use to describe your sexual orientation should be your own. if you identify as gay, you shouldn't be pressured into calling it something else to satisfy others.

<realizes somewhere along the lines I found a soapbox and climbed up on it lol></rant>

I don't think I've found a tunnel worm question I didn't like. This one was no exception.
http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67535/

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67722/

Kirke's answer made me laugh out loud. Well done.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67763/

Not having an aggressive brain tumor is an excellent example of an invisible privilege (i.e., something that makes your life much easier but that you also take for granted). It drives me nuts when people refuse to acknowledge the thousands of invisible privileges that helped them get where they are in life. (Brain tumors aren't terrible politically divisive, but many other types of invisible privilege are, so we end up blaming people for the hand they were dealt in life.)

Katya wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67763/

Not having an aggressive brain tumor is an excellent example of an invisible privilege (i.e., something that makes your life much easier but that you also take for granted). It drives me nuts when people refuse to acknowledge the thousands of invisible privileges that helped them get where they are in life. (Brain tumors aren't terrible politically divisive, but many other types of invisible privilege are, so we end up blaming people for the hand they were dealt in life.)

Seriously. It really drives me crazy when people act like they are so virtuous for having made "choices" that their circumstances basically made for them. On a semi-related note, it also drives me crazy when med students complain about having to learn so many complicated things about horrible diseases that real people actually have to live with. I'm like, oh, you think it sucks that you have to sit through 4 hours of lectures about dialysis? You know what sucks even more? Having to sit in the hospital for 4 hours a day 3-5 times a week and being on dialysis. That definitely sucks more. Especially if you're the dialysis patient who became profoundly hypotense and almost died while I was shadowing in the dialysis ward a couple of weeks ago.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67855/

So, I stepped on a stick today. It broke.

Obviously, this started me wondering about the mechanical characteristics of wood . . .

As soon as I read this, I knew who had asked the question.

Am I so predictable? ;D

Also, Maven found some great resources for that question!

Fredjikrang wrote:Am I so predictable? ;D

Also, Maven found some great resources for that question!

Not predictable, just . . . unique. (Predictable would mean I could predict your next question, which I can't. But I'll know it's yours when I see it. )

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67931/

I really like The Bayesian Conspiracy's answer to this question! I thought it was well thought out, clear, and I really liked that he talked about the actual doctrine concerning suicide at the end. Thanks for a great answer!

Fredjikrang wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/67931/

I really liked that he talked about the actual doctrine concerning suicide at the end.

TBC is a girl, just FYI.

Duly noted!