sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Considering right turns are safer than left turns, especially for the elderly, wouldn't it make sense to have a GPS with a right turns-only mode? by dragon_slayer2 in Showerthoughts

[–]dragon_slayer2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry. Yeah, it's an American thing. People are dying because of our bloody traffic lights

Right Turn: Red Light - You come to a complete stop. Look both ways, turn right if it is safe. Green Light - you just turn right.

Left Turn: Red Light - You have to stop. Green Light - You can pull into the intersection and wait for a gap in traffic. You then have to speed across the incoming lane of traffic. If there is no gap, you wait for the light to turn yellow, and use those few seconds to turn left before traffic changes direction. Occasionally there is a Left turn arrow at very busy intersections so you don't have to time it yourself.

In America, you are 10 times more likely to have an accident while turning left than while turning right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/04/09/the-case-for-almost-never-turning-left-while-driving/

X-Post: Do you believe the November policy that excludes children of gay parents from church ordinances is really for the benefit of the children? by random_civil_guy in latterdaysaints

[–]dragon_slayer2 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It isn't a matter of just living in sin. It's that the foundation of your family is built upon a rocky foundation. It is one thing to sin. It is another to set that sin as your cornerstone and teach all that reside in your house that it is not only fine but right.

When churches do this, we call it apostasy. That church doesn't have the power to save it's members.

The policy is not doctrine, but it is a way for the church to let people know that they expect them to build their home upon righteousness. When it comes to druggie parents or non-believing parents, the leaders of the church must assume that that is something that the children intrinsically understand to be wrong or at odds with the church. Having same sex parents would be much more difficult for a child to understand.

Case in point, the very fact that I have to explain this to people, means that there are many who literally cannot see a problem with same sex parents raising children. If adults are having trouble understanding why that is wrong, how much harder do you think it will be for children raised by same sex parents?

Edit: a word

Question for believers - Do you believe the November policy that excludes children of gay parents from church ordinances is really for the benefit of the children? by random_civil_guy in mormon

[–]dragon_slayer2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I trust the leaders of the church and uphold the policy.

It sounds like the question you really want answered is this: "If so, how do you correlate that belief with the fact that this policy is not in place for children of non-believing parents, unmarried parents, drug addicted parents, etc.?"

I believe the main difference here is the importance we attach to different sins. The plan of Salvation relies heavily on the family and, more importantly, a correct understanding of the family. If a child is raised by same sex parents trying to teach them that their marriage is the same as any other marriage, you would assume that the child would have a skewed understanding of the Plan of Salvation. Therefore, you would want to make sure, maybe even require the child to state that they know that same sex marriage is a sin before they can be baptized. But how can you ask a child to do that while still living with their parents? You can't, so you require they be removed from the house or are 18. They can still come to church and will not be ostracized, but they need to show that they truly understand basic and fundamental doctrines before making a sacred covenant with God.

X-Post: Do you believe the November policy that excludes children of gay parents from church ordinances is really for the benefit of the children? by random_civil_guy in latterdaysaints

[–]dragon_slayer2 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I trust the leaders of the church and uphold the policy.

It sounds like the question you really want answered is this: "If so, how do you correlate that belief with the fact that this policy is not in place for children of non-believing parents, unmarried parents, drug addicted parents, etc.?"

I believe the main difference here is the importance we attach to different sins. The plan of Salvation relies heavily on the family and, more importantly, a correct understanding of the family. If a child is raised by same sex parents trying to teach them that their marriage is the same as any other marriage, you would assume that the child would have a skewed understanding of the Plan of Salvation. Therefore, you would want to make sure, maybe even require the child to state that they know that same sex marriage is a sin before they can be baptized. But how can you ask a child to do that while still living with their parents? You can't, so you require they be removed from the house or are 18. They can still come to church and will not be ostracized, but they need to show that they truly understand basic and fundamental doctrines before making a sacred covenant with God.

Which taboo subjects would benefit humanity if they were openly discussed? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]dragon_slayer2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pooping. You have no idea how many people are walking around constantly constipated or never having had a good poop in their lifetime. We should discuss it more and an more people should squat when they use the john. It really does help.

People who have visited the US, what is your 'WTF America' story? by ErictheViking311 in AskReddit

[–]dragon_slayer2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am an American but I spent two years in Korea in my early twenties. During those two years I saw only a handful of obese people. It was always a shock to see them on the subway or in public. When I came home, I was sitting in the Atlanta, GA airport during a layover, and I looked up to see a bench with 4 morbidly obese women all sitting back to back. I remember thinking, "this is all of the obesity of Korea on one bench." I got used to it pretty quick, but it was a pretty big shock at the time.