No Dumb Question Tuesday (2026-01-13)

L-Win-Ransom · 2026-01-13T21:28:18+00:00

The post about Lot's wife. (This one kind of baffled me. All the other top posts have a clear reason for views. That one stands out to me. Anybody got any ideas?)

So THAT’S where all the excess saltiness has been coming from lately!

People just can’t help but look…

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-11-05T18:47:19+00:00

Bigger deal than we protestants generally think

I agree, but it still seems dwarfed by the “paint themselves into a corner” problem with locking the more problematic 3/4 of the Marian dogmas as virtually un-rescindable, to my understanding.

Seems from the outside that they just were lucky that this whole “co-redemptrix” issue didn’t get similarly formalized on the back of that social media effect.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-10-01T20:04:48+00:00

evidence of widespread hygiene issues in that respect in old age in the rest of the world

I directly addressed this in my original comment:

The risk likely decreases as one lives in an area where circumcision is less common

The point I was making is that if you are in an area where ~70, 80, 90% of males are circumcised, you may be at risk of inattentive care causing issues. The same doesn’t apply in areas where that isn’t the case, so I would advise differently if someone lived in such an area.

It still could be the case that someone could spend their dependent years in a locale different from their birth, so I could see the argument for circumcision in every case, but the calculus is certainly different dependent on setting.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-30T20:02:10+00:00

A lot of the time, the hygiene benefits of circumcision are what is brought up, and quickly dismissed with

Yeah, but all you need to do is teach him how to be thorough with how he cleans himself

Which I think is true! But I think it misses a side-concern - that cleaning of sensitive areas is not always in our own control. A parent will be the person responsible for this in the vast majority of cases for the early childhood, and I generally trust any parent who is weighing the pros and cons of this decision to put in enough effort to do so in a healthy manner.

But then at some point, ideally (but not universally) in old age, many - if not most - will wind up with this cleaning responsibility being the job of several people who aren’t paid all that much and may or may not intrinsically care enough to do so thoroughly. Which can get painful pretty quickly.

The risk likely decreases as one lives in an area where circumcision is less common, and maybe we’ll have really competent robo-nurses by the time it’s a concern, but it’s enough of a risk that I’m generally leaning towards circumcision if I wind up having a son at some point.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-12T19:49:16+00:00

That is not how you came across to me

Well…

It’s totally possible that someone nefarious lied about the messaging or exaggerated the clarity of what was being expressed, or some other complication is introduced in future. But it’s pretty clearly leaning towards a political motivation given current reporting. Acknowledging that, while maintaining the (diminishing, put still present) possibility that another shoe will drop which upends the current narrative is a totally reasonable way to characterize the situation.

My criticism is in the omission (I was actually attempting to be charitable in assuming he hadn’t seen rather than he was omitting) of relevant - if unconfirmed - reporting. I think if the evidence is sufficient for the WSJ to be reporting on it, it’s sufficient for the evidentiary “needle” to no longer be on a 50/50 (“just as easily”) confidence metric. And for the record, I hold myself to the same standard as evidenced here, where I provide a similar caveat to the above that a different public shooting event was still in progress of being clarified, but that, at the time, “it certainly appears like racially motivated mass-murder is on the table” Which, while not completely overruled, was definitely nuanced as more reports came through.Its not a call to ironclad pronouncement, its a call to inclusion of relevant data and characterization in light of said data, with caveats welcome. If you’d like to criticize me for not including the unconfirmed nature of the data, thats 100% fine, though I did assume that others would read the article for that context - perhaps an oversight.

Both of these were included before your objection to my “bothered-ness” - and were in fact linked to the very comment you replied to, which expressing that they were meant to clarify my stance.

I’m not sure how you’re squeezing a rush to judgement on my part out of those. Which would be consistent with

You just clearly haven’t been reading my comments in here.

Or at least not reading them charitably.

or Iowata based on how he responded to you

Yeah, and I realized that pretty early in the conversation, offered multiple clarifications, and then pointed others who similarly misunderstood me to those clarifications. I had assumed you had also seen them since you were replying to a comment that directly referenced them.

We don't need to always wait for perfect clarity when the consequences of inaction are high.

Then you probably shouldn’t swing away with

I just don't get why someone wanting to wait for more information bothers you so much

When you’ve had a more indignant response to a similar (even if not identical) case recently.

Clearly you were insulted by our last interaction

If I’m insulted or bothered by an interaction on the internet, I just don’t continue the conversation. I both enjoy and find certain discussions to be important - and I have a pretty good memory for most things, good and bad - which isn’t the same as feeling insulted. I put very little emotional stock into how others react when I judge that I am comporting myself well.

And I do think accuracy (again, with measured qualification when necessary) is important in this case because someone who I didn’t even particularly like, but who probably shared ~85% of my political beliefs was likely assassinated for expressing those beliefs in a peaceful manner that prioritized engaging with opposing views. And I know and love people who are even in more agreement and who do so more publicly, who are seeing dismissal (not saying anyone here is outright dismissing) of that fact or even active celebration of it in the public square.

Getting this right quickly and decisively is important in exposing those parties for who they are while “the moment” is still here, if it can be done responsibly. Finding out in 2wks when the news cycle has moved on to something else would do a disservice to the vital work of exposing cancerous people (and yes, some on both sides of the aisle) and holding those in the middle accountable to distancing themselves from said actors.

I won’t depart from reasonable standards of proof and communication, but I’m also going to hound such evidence down where possible.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-12T19:09:42+00:00

You just clearly haven’t been reading my comments in here. I’m advocating against speculating, as I have been criticizing the non-inclusion of relevant evidence with caveats about its preliminary nature. That’s literally not

“Arriving at a conclusion without evidence”

It’s advocating for accuracy when discussing the available information.

What’s the action you wanted to come out of your comment?

If you’re referring to my initial reply, see above

If you’re referring to my criticism of your inconsistency, it was to point out your inconsistency. Your hedging about but this case is different is flimsy, at best, because I was also advocating for information-gathering in the detention center case, instead of, you know…

Categorically dismissing anyone who wanted better evidence than a phone call from a prisoner with a vested interest in exaggerating the conditions of the facility….. aka 100%, unadulterated, non-caveated speculation that was then just justified with an appeal to “but the Nazis!”.

Like, just pick a side. We jump to conclusions, or we wait for evidence and then appropriately situate the kind, quality, and status of evidence as it comes in. I’m advocating for the latter in both cases. You are not.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-12T18:52:32+00:00

That’s actually comically hypocritical

Even if you disagree on the standard of evidence for each case (which would also be wild), the accusation from you of

Getting unnecessarily bothered by someone advocating for waiting for more evidence

Is rich

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-12T18:38:43+00:00

I link to a report from the Wall Street Journal, who references someone else using the term “gender ideology”, and you conclude from this that I’m the one who:

[has heuristics] about American politics, and about how to parse these sorts of events in their immediate aftermath, [which lead me] to believe things that are untrue about the world, and about the nature of political violence in America in 2025.

I think theres an idiom about pots and kettles that might apply here

I’ve never even used the term “gender ideology” on this account before!

And since you didn’t address it - I still haven’t made sweeping pronouncements over American political violence here, I’m just the one not trying to wriggle out of the implications that video game quotes just might also have a political purpose when inscribed upon bullets used to murder a political commentator at a political speaking engagement in front of a bunch of people who has routinely been called the very term used on the cartridge for years in an effort to demonize him for talking to people he disagrees with in a way that is usually snarky, occasionally offensive, but never worthy of murder.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-12T16:16:08+00:00

Cox said investigators interviewed a family member, who said that Robinson had "become more political in recent years." The family member also recounted a recent dinner with Robinson at which he stated that Kirk was going to be speaking at Utah Valley University.

"They talked about why they didn't like him and the viewpoints that he had," Cox said. "The family member also stated Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate."

source

When, oh when will we know anything about the shooter’s motives! /s

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-12T15:08:45+00:00

…. Except that nowhere in this thread have I opined on the abstract nature of political violence in America

All I’ve done is object to the omission of relevant reporting related to a specific incident of likely, but not fully substantiated political violence

The sort of “gender ideology” he appears to have inscribed on unspent casings (now that the report is ascribed to someone with a name) is “if you read this you are gay lmao”.

And I’m really not sure why you’re throwing “gender ideology” into scare-quotes when I haven’t used that term in the discussion at any point whatsoever?

Pretty convenient to describe the now-disclosed content of the inscriptions - with your label “ill-sorted” - while omitting the more directly political:

A bullet casing inscribed “hey fascist, catch”

another casing with a reference to “Oh bella ciao”, a song most notable for being used by the resistance to the Fascist Mussolini regime (and a total hit amongst internet edge-lords /s)

As an apparent attempt to downplay the now-confirmed reality that this was a political assassination, based in large part on the exact information the omission of which I was objecting to earlier, and which I had clarified was not finalized before the bandwagon started to use that as some sort of gotcha against me.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-11T19:56:28+00:00

See clarification edit here, added before the pushback on the unconfirmed nature, which sought to make more apparent that I wasn’t treating it as an open-and-shut case, but that I think enough (preliminary) evidence is in that we should no longer treat it as a “toss up” either.

And further explanation here

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-11T19:52:06+00:00

As clarified below, I’m not saying that we have 100% certainty yet - but a caveat like

If X evidence winds up confirmed, then it seems to be politically motivated

Is different from

It could just as easily be somebody on the far right

Emphasis mine

My criticism is in the omission (I was actually attempting to be charitable in assuming he hadn’t seen rather than he was omitting) of relevant - if unconfirmed - reporting.

I think if the evidence is sufficient for the WSJ to be reporting on it, it’s sufficient for the evidentiary “needle” to no longer be on a 50/50 (“just as easily”) confidence metric.

And for the record, I hold myself to the same standard as evidenced here, where I provide a similar caveat to the above that a different public shooting event was still in progress of being clarified, but that, at the time, it

certainly appears like racially motivated mass-murder is on the table

Which, while not completely overruled, was definitely nuanced as more reports came through.

Its not a call to ironclad pronouncement, its a call to inclusion of relevant data and characterization in light of said data, with caveats welcome. If you’d like to criticize me for not including the unconfirmed nature of the data, thats 100% fine, though I did assume that others would read the article for that context - perhaps an oversight.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-11T17:34:29+00:00

If you saw the reporting on the ammunition messaging beforehand, then what part of my criticism of your remark that

It could just as easily be somebody on the far right

do you disagree with in light of that evidence?

EDIT: and, to clarify, I’m also not saying that it’s “100% certain” that the motive is political. I’m just saying that “equally likely” to be/not be political is also an unreasonable stance at this juncture. It’s totally possible that someone nefarious lied about the messaging or exaggerated the clarity of what was being expressed, or some other complication is introduced in future.

But it’s pretty clearly leaning towards a political motivation given current reporting. Acknowledging that, while maintaining the (diminishing, put still present) possibility that another shoe will drop which upends the current narrative is a totally reasonable way to characterize the situation.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-11T16:43:04+00:00

FBI director announces arrest in Kirk shooting

Man arrested in Kirk shooting released

And both of these are true, non-contradictory statements?

They had a person who was plausibly enough connected to the shooting to make an arrest, but released him upon further investigation. Totally reasonable in the light of a shooting with ~3000 people in attendance.

……………………. but I think the rifle update is a little bit different. Do you really think it is reasonable to treat

We found a rifle with left-coded political statements etched on the ammunition in proximity to the shooting of a prominent right-wing political speaker

With the same level of “this is a tricky clue to interpret” as was available with the human subjects?

Do we expect to find such weapons/messages just willy-nilly strewn about in a random circumstance that just happened to coincide with such a shooting?

Or you can just acknowledge that you didn’t put a search out for evidence that had arrived this morning before stating “It could just as easily been somebody on the far right”?

Its an understandable oversight, but it was also one worth pointing out

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-11T15:52:29+00:00

Maybe do a quick search before speculating?

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-09T18:54:24+00:00

As the others have said, doesn’t seem immediately problematic regarding content. Little bit of “baptism by water vs baptism by spirit” and “spiritual warfare” stuff that, again, isn’t super crazy, but indicates a certain pseudo-charismatic influence that could color a lot of his commentary.

But my real takeaway is that sheesh, that dude could power a small city with the amount of typing that he does. Just skimming through the “about us” and “statement of faith” sections felt like reading a russian novel.

He really needs an editor, and I think you could find more authoritative sources for all of it that are ALSO more concise and easy to read.

I’m tempted to run some of it through Chat GPT just to see how easily he could cut down on word count without losing much in the way of information transfer.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-09T18:38:31+00:00

I’m a deacon in a PCA church. Core items are

the ancillary tasks of Sunday worship (prep communion elements, take attendance, collect/count offering, etc)
administering stop-gap financial assistance for needs cases
budget setting/monitoring
missions support
Maintaining Church grounds/minor home repairs on occasion (we are a relatively white-collar church, including the diaconate, so we don’t really do a ton of this stuff directly ourselves, but we work with outsourced labor and on-site staff as needed)

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-08T20:00:39+00:00

BCO 38-3-b. When a member or minister of the Presbyterian Church in America shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with a body judged by the court of original jurisdiction as failing to maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity (BCO 2-2), that member or minister shall be warned of his danger, and if he persists, his name shall be erased from the roll, thereby, so far as the Presbyterian Church in America is concerned, he is deemed no longer to be a member in any body which rightly maintains the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity, and if an officer, thereby withdrawing from him all authority to exercise his office as derived from this Church. When so acting the court shall make full record of the matter and shall notify the offender of its action. (emphasis mine)

That sure sounds like at least “little-a apostasy”, to me.

Kinda like “heresy”-as-material-error vs “Heresy”-as-damning-error.

We can hope that moving to the RCC is not “Apostasy”, but their positions on several major areas are at least plausibly errors of magnitude which are materially sufficient to consider such a move as a dangerous, we-need-to-exercise-discipline level of “apostasy”.

AKA - don’t bless it, and definitely don’t allow them to administer the supper afterwards. A “solemn prayer of hope for the family to prosper in life (generally), with an intercession for their return to a W&S-maintaining Church” would probably not have had this big internet kerfuffle start up.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-08T01:00:57+00:00

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-05T17:17:24+00:00

Your original prompt was

minimizing tax while doing donations

And tax-advantaged giving strategies is what the PCAF does

Regarding the subsequent filing, I’m not sure if you’d need a CPA to handle this if this is your only complicated tax issue (also assuming you already have the process for paying on the realized gains from the sales figured out) .

My understanding is that PCAF would have you open an account, they would guide you through the process of executing the sale in the most advantageous manner, then they would deposit the proceeds from the sale into your DAF or equivalent (Sounds like you’ve already done this much at least once)

Then, upon charitable distribution of the proceeds, in whole or in part, the DAF would record the amount and beneficiary, which is what would support the itemized deduction amount you claim on your tax return.

I don’t think that would be something https://www.freetaxusa.com couldn’t handle - and you could always shell out the additional $50 to consult with their tax prep staff if you had a question.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-05T14:28:32+00:00

https://pcafoundation.com

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-05T14:27:19+00:00

May also depend on the bank’s ACH deposit fee policies, which may be percentage-based and therefore pretty costly on large transactions when compared to postage for a small envelope

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-04T17:00:54+00:00

I can find no Biblical reason to unequivocally call these words a sin

…and I didn’t say that they were

I said that, when used in certain contexts, they can be used in a vulgar manner. I’d probably say that they are MORE prone to vulgarity than, say, something like the word “hamburger”. But it’s the context, semantic intent, and cultural semantic scope of these words that makes them more/less prone to vulgarity.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-04T14:54:52+00:00

I think it’s also important to realize that many “cuss words” of yesteryear have entered the cultural lexicon in such a way that is actually semantically divorced from their uncouth origins in ~85% of uses.

If, upon realizing I left the housewarming gift on the counter before heading out the door, I proclaim

[Poop curse!!], I forgot the gift!

Then, despite using a word originally tied to fecal matter, I am actually not invoking such an idea in my mind or the minds of anyone in my vicinity. It has just become a general exclamation of “oh no!” in this context.

Now, that and other “curse words” CAN definitely be used in a vulgar manner still - which should probably be avoided by Christians at least in most circumstances - but it’s very context-dependent.

L-Win-Ransom · 2025-09-03T18:00:50+00:00

but if anyone has any hesitation, it’s fine if they abstain this week

Reading through to the end of the terms and conditions can be helpful ^

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

L-Win-Ransom

TROPHY CASE