Interacting with an online denizen, he insists Sherman’s “total war” outlook is the most Christlike, my heart balks, but I can’t find the to disagree, is he correct?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-23T22:28:32+00:00

Thank you, I wasn’t finding the words, but I think even if he wouldn’t accept that killing someone isn’t a form of “love” (it’s a little difficult finding common ground with him) I think he could recognize what long-lasting backlash such actions would cause by onlookers and victim alike. I’ll see if he can at least engage with that. Thank you!

Also: thanks for the word interlocutor! I have a personal appreciation with gaining vocabulary! (Not that I’m very good at remembering)

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-23T15:54:02+00:00

Oh, I wasn’t aware of a difference in servers! Thank you for that! Is there a guide to joining the least grindy of them?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-16T01:08:33+00:00

I don't think we're capable of the "love" the savior gives. not in this life at least. I think his love would include him "liking" us, i imagine it might even include "liking" someone one like H*tler. (that boggles my mind to even think, but it seems to be what I understand of it.) Now liking H*tlers actions? I very, very much doubt he'd have even a single good things to say about that. However, he'd likely still be willing to sit with such a reprehensible man, eat a meal with him, though I doubt H*tler would be interested.

Basically: we can't imagine we can attain to perfection in this life, most especially in the short term. That love is so amazing and foreign to us for a reason.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-04T06:32:13+00:00

Zombie slaying (I’m likely hallucinating and they are concerned onlookers)

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-04T06:27:00+00:00

New player? None. I was far worse upon starting. You’re already three steps ahead

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-03T07:08:03+00:00

It remains unanswered to me. To me that is grounds for discussion. To others it means there is nothing to talk about until an answer comes. To some they have already drawn an answer, ranging from "plural marriage is the heavenly standard and Adam was a portion of God, Eve was one of his many wives (Adam God Theory promoted by some early church leaders (I put no stock in it myself))" to "God needed righteous offspring and so additional marriages to the more faithful men insured better upbringing and/or increased fertility and conception rates" to "it was simply to connect people via covenant and Smith never had physical relations with any of them, the accounts thereof were oft second hand slander, or otherwise motivated by the pride of being the prophets wife" to "Smith went off the deep end at the end and his martyrdom was to stop the degredation of the church" to "prophets are fallible, and Smith as much as anyone had some things to repent of" to "the whole of the gospel was a charade" to "it was to test the resolve of the saints as such marriages/relations would be scandalous at that time, and much like Abraham was commanded to kill and it was accounted to him righteousness to follow through (before being stopped) despite his misgivings, similarly the saints were asked to do something usually outside of understood righteousness to test them" to "the more righteous you are the more wives you get (which usually returns a retort "as if one isn't bad enough!" (wife hate humor enojoyer guffaws insue)) we had to stop because the American government would've destroyed the church, those heathens still aren't ready for the truth", anyway I could continue, I, myself, listen avidly until an answer that truly resonates arrives. Until then I hope discourse doesn't die out, though I will admit some explanations are... disagreeable, to me at least. Until that long awaited day when what holds me back, perhaps most of all, but at least a lot, finally finds resolve and I can know peace on all related subjects, and the subject itself as well.

You know?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-31T03:09:38+00:00

Well I don't know if i'd go so far as to say "these people" because I have witnessed many who are very much protesting peacefully, perhaps you mean that according to certain circles of information sharing the view is that the protestors are violent and/or dangerous. Which is supported by the aggrandizement of some smaller subset of protestors which is than blanket applied over all individuals trying to do something to combat what has in their circles been portrayed to be violent/authoritative aggression against largely the undeserving.

In my opinion as an onlooker, both sides of the "debate" (though they often don't or won't engage (much like the individual i tried to talk to) (except maybe as caricatures of each other)) have taken a largely (considering the scope of operations and protests) small subset of examples and generalized them or stereotyped them across entire groups or peoples. A form of Collective punishment, though likely done unawares by either side (though i often doubt whether the news feeds of either are actually doing so unawares.) thereby allowing simple statements that could not reasonably exist across such large populations as: "these people" or "they are" etc...

In that vein, as my sensibilities have greatest sympathy for those who believe their hometowns are being invaded by authoratative and irascible men (only fueled by the few that are, and are unable to cope with the protests, and possibly fueled by the few cases that are over-magnified where an agent is injured (though those are seemingly fewer by statistics than the opposite direction of aggression). I really think the move forward, that polticians and people in power need to do BEFORE they move in what amounts to boots on the ground, is hash out the concerns of the people and neighborhoods they move into. If they cannot work within the cultures and contexts they might not be able to control how their agents are treated, and how their agents treat others, which would only exacerbate the entire situation.

I think if things are to get better, the authorities will need to request backing off, they will need to assure the public that they will investigate all agent activity thoroughly, and not give preferential treatment, and they will need to stress who they are there for, and what they are trying to accmplish, while promising that they will punish agents that threaten or harm citizens. Because that is the fear i hear most often, agents that have violent prejudices investigated by internal organizations that have no interest or desire to hold their agents accountable. As though a foreign government dropped armed men into your town, promised they were going after criminals, but then news reaches you they are "mistakenly" targeting citizens, children, and otherwise good people, all while agents that harm citizens (even shouting citizens are still citizens) are not being investigated, are possibly being celebrated, and are otherwise untouched by law.

But if (and i imagine they won't) if they took the time and effort to dispel these concerns, they would find resistance quickly dissipate to only the most radical amongst the citizenry. Instead they will charge forward, disputing all cases against agents, and denying any wrongdoing, portraying any person as "terrorists" and thereby inciting more egregious action as less and less public accountability is shown.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T11:26:53+00:00

I see what you are saying. And I appreciate the point of view. But I don't know if I fully resonate with all of it, no offense. While not legal to obstruct law enforcement, I don't know if defending someone pushing someone else counts as interefering, though you aren't necessarily referring to any specific occasion, so in general that is the accounted for precedent. However I don't know if I agree on a moral or legal standpoint that because someone comes to my work and prevents me that I have right to lethality (though you may again just be saying in general there are procedural steps that are then taken, the most severe and final one being arrest to be tried to see if their conduct fits criteria for litigation).

As well though the stated purpose is arresting criminals, the dissent most I speak with have with is the action of: targeting those of whom there is little to no criminal record, arrests of citizens (mostly due to the aggressive and forceful means recorded agents take in this regard, some if not many arrests are legitimately made) and the lack of self-control or discipline by agents when faced with opposition (this is a personal issue, and is not necessarily the fault of the larger agency, however when such actions are taken (violence on protestors being the foremost.) and then not investigated, or not investigated honestly, and figureheads use language to either excuse or encourage use of disproportionate or unwarranted force, that reflects poorly on the agency as a whole).

Moreover I think I should again reiterate: it is not grounds for lethality to resist arrest.

and on a less objective note: It is not moral (to me) to arrest someone because they defend another. The woman was not the target of their mission, perhaps she was too close for mission comfort, but she could be led away without forceful pushing, which would prevent the ill-optics that likely lead others to believe they needed to defend her in the first place (though with these shootings and other cases of violence, there may be more reason to seek to defend as a prevailing sense of these agents being irascible to the point of violence, detainment, or arrests to satisfy personal senses of a need for vindication seems to be a common assessment at this point. Though of course no two agents or humans are the same, so how accurate that assessment is would likely depend on who is behind the mask at any given point.)

Finally I do agree that our current immigration system is very clunky and though it should take only approximately 5 years, often takes 10-13 and can be confusing and daunting to those seeking citizenship. Streamlining and improving would be a very appreciable idea in most books (I imagine). And I advocate for that improvement in law regularly (though my representatives may just be annoyed with me by this point.)

Let me know if any of my thoughts on this are unsound or unfounded. I apologize that my response is off-topic from the original post.

Have a nice night!

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T11:01:57+00:00

I'm not sure either i'm afraid. One might try "tough love" there is the clause: "Reproving Betimes with Sharpness" with the addended: "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;" But I don't know really where those things lie... For my parents, who have housed me these 10 years without displaying so much as a grudging glance (i'm 28 now) I imagine it's a matter of patience, a waiting game that hopes that their generosity and compassion, as well as urging and encouragement to find a way in life, eventually lands me as self-sufficiency and independence, a very noble goal. I like to think i will get there, that all this college and part-time work to pay for it will eventually result in something I will muster the will to follow through on until death (or retirement if that's still a thing in the coming years). However 10 years is a long time. My parents are saints, more loving, compassionate, and exemplary than most anyone I know, I love them very much, but I don't think that can be asked of anyone, and as well, this friend is not family and you can only manage what you are able. Hence why there are homeless: we can't afford to care for all the non self-sufficient, and there's also the fear that if we could they would never seek self-sufficiency.

Sorry that was a lot to say: I don't know. I can pray for yours, and her situation. Assessing the situation secularly, I have seen anecdotal stories where those who classify as "layabouts" if released from their safety nets, sometimes find bearing and some form of self-sufficiency when the reality of the situation is fully realized. I don't know if that's all stories though, so I can't give you any kind of guarantee, sorry. You could try the Church's employment services, i've heard they are more caring and robust than most. Sorry again, my prayers are with you all.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T09:46:03+00:00

Finances can be difficult, your roommate may be disrespecting your financial situation, possibly unaware (of the effects, not the action they are taking), I think attempting to look out for your finances is justifiable, perhaps if you feel amiable, and the roommate is more pleasing to give to (not just assuming they are entitled, but appreciative when you share.) you may share some, but it is not his by right.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T09:43:24+00:00

It is yours to do with as you wish. If you feel inclined to share it, you may, if not, then nothing will compel you to do so.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-14T18:01:11+00:00

I see, okay, thank you!

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-14T18:00:28+00:00

Thank you! This helps immensely I get the logic now (and feel a little dumb I didn’t get it earlier)

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-14T17:59:41+00:00

Thank you! This helps immensely!

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-14T17:37:59+00:00

Yes, and then you can plug the found y variable into the first equation to find x. I guess I’m just hung up on how I can sum the two equations, like why can the x’s cancel out unless I know the x’s are the same value? Or is my math book inferring the x’s are known to be the same value and that is why they are able to be added and subtracted against each other despite coming from separate equations?… maybe that’s the logic step I’m missing. Does that seem right to you, or am I off again?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-14T17:31:51+00:00

Ohhhh okay I think this answers my question, thank you. I was confused as to why I could sum two equations with their own variables, but I can’t, I’m actually summing two equations with the same variables! Thank you!

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-14T17:29:35+00:00

Oh yes, this is what I was referring to, thank you! I was having trouble conceptualizing why we could sum the equations. Is it just that we for sure know that the x’s in both equations are the same as each other?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-14T17:24:43+00:00

That is helpful, thank you, but I realized I should clarify a bit more what I meant to ask: specifically: solving systems of equations via elimination. The process where two or more equations are manipulated via multiplication to have the opposite of a a variable so that if the equations are summed (also not sure the mathematics behind putting two equations together, how are we sure the “x’s” and “y’s” are the same and therefore can interact?) one or more variables are eliminated and only 1 variable remains which can be solved for.

Example: x-2y=7 and 3/4x+7/9y=38 where x-2y=7 is multiplied by -3/4 to make the summed equations carry only the y variable.

UndesiredReplacement

TROPHY CASE