I disagree it adds a layer of complexity to land rights and sentencing issues as our government is by design secular. I agree with you that if the Bundys claim religious inspiration, it's inappropriate to dismiss it. It may embarrass other mormons, and understandably so, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the inspiration behind the action. Indeed, it sounds like a direct influence. According to Ravin's link:

Can you connect the dots for me? What LDS theology do you suspect is motivating them?

So... these guys who warned violent retribution against anyone coming towards them with the intent of carrying out the law are not combative or aggressive. Because carrying guns is not always a sign of being combative or aggressive. In the same way cake doesn't have calories if you eat it standing up.

How so?

Mockery is a long-standing response to aggression and tyranny. And let's face it, these guys are trying to assert authority where they have none, and they are doing it on their terms, threatening violence towards those who refuse to capitulate to their demands. The thing is, they're doing it ridiculously. Their sit-in is ill-conceived, they have no real goal, they are woefully unprepared for the reality of their actions (such as, you know, needing to eat). They're just pissed and they want people to know it. Apparently, they want other people to get pissed off as well, and ... I dunno, do something, I guess. They don't really say. They've just claimed authority over federal land and have some romantic notion that this will turn out well and they'll be heroes, I guess. It's anyone's guess, as they're not doing anything other than calling dibs on an empty building. This really is identical to a child's temper tantrum, take away the foot stomping and add deadly weaponry. And for me, the deadly weaponry is what makes it go from silly and absurd to terrorism, which isn't funny. But these guys are funny. So long as there is no killing, it's fantastically entertaining. So long as there's no killing. I hope to all the gods no one fancies himself a martyr, because that would be such a needless tragedy. Truly. I find these people foolish, but I know they mean a great deal to others, and I know we have one life to live, and to give it up like this, for this, that's just such a shame. And it would be so hard on those who love them. What an awful tragedy that could be. But for now, let's hope for the best. I agree with you. Lots of people process with humor. My MIL always said, "Well, what are you gonna do? If you can't laugh, you're gonna cry." When that humor addresses certain problems, like racism, it makes a point quickly and memorably. I try not to be offensive with jokes, I think that's probably true of everyone, but sometimes we find certain things outside our comfort zone. I don't think we should expect no humor, but I'll stop making jokes in this thread because it's not my intent to upset people, just participate in the conversation.

What do you mean by "grace"? Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean pretend she doesn't bother you? Do you mean forgive her and not assume guilt on her part? Do you mean treat everyone the same way, including her?

I do have a serious reply to this, and if my posts aren't deleted by the time I get back to my computer, I'll respond with respect. I think this is a really good point to get into - mockery of aggressors and [arguably] terrorists. Maybe it's too off topic. Perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate. I disagree this is bigotry, but I want to address this point with consideration.

Thanks for the link. ETA: Reading the link, that doesn't address protesters in general at all, and I totally disagree with your interpretation of Umsami's comments (assuming this is the post, or her follow up to your question, especially as she specifically denies the contention). Criticizing isn't bigotry.

Anything Duck Dynasty.

What's okay? To make jokes? Yes. Jokes are okay. Satire is even better, but that doesn't always go over well here. I'm more interested in the answer to my question. Can you link to the posts in this thread that talk about protests are never warranted and sit-ins in a government building should ensue in the death penalty? Care to address the idea of weapons at a protest and how they don't serve as a threat? Or Bundy's comment that there will be violence if government agencies try to remove them?

No one has the "right" to defend themselves against prosecution when they break the law. Good grief! :laugh: (ETA: good grief them, not you, JodiSue) Illegal protests are broken up. These yokels came from a legal protest - a march. They developed an illegal protest - taking control of a federal building. FTFY The full force of government power is imprisonment. That's the legal set up of a free nation. Yours is an awkward and inaccurate spin on it. Legal protests are an historically successful means by which the people collectively make their voices heard when otherwise they are ignored. Put so too have illegal protests been. No doubt. The difference is, this protest is ridiculous. It's haphazardly and foolishly carried out by people who are unprepared for the reality of the situation. ETA: Removed my imagination of the situation

Can you link to these posts in this thread? I don't recall reading that and couldn't find them, but admittedly I searched only for the word "death" on each page, so I would have missed any other phrasing. I was robbed at gun point once with my husband and another couple. We were trapped in the house with at least 5 other men. I say at least 5 because I made a point to not make eye contact or give them any reason to feel threatened by me being too aware (for identification purposes, I was also scared sh*tless, to be frank). I did notice the one gun pointed at me the most had bullets in the chamber. It was full, I remember being impressed by that fact. These guns weren't just props. They could easily have shot us had we failed to comply to whatever they demanded. I disagree that guns in an illegal take-over is not inherently threatening, and that threat is with bodily harm. That threat is violence. That's what's keeping these men in, after all, otherwise they would be rounded up and arrested. The only thing I could think of that would diminish the terrorism possibility here is that they hadn't made any demands. By definition (as provided in this thread, and thank you to those posters for doing that, btw), terrorism includes making demands of the government or people to change some policy. These guys had made no such demand. They're just, what? Pissed? They want others to make the demands while they get credited with rallying people together? It's all so ridiculous. But it seems they have made demands. They demand to maintain control of a federal building. "The only violence that, if it comes our way, will be because government is wanting their building back,'' Ammon Bundy told Natalie Morales on TODAY. Armed takeovers of federal buildings seems to me to be an act of war, terrorism or no. I think they should be arrested and prosecuted for treason. I also think, thank all the gods the ones taking over federal buildings are a bunch of yahoos, because this could get scary bad in a short time. But these guys? It's like watching Hee Haw declare victory. How does one keep a straight face watching that? Srsly?

How is Rosanne unethical?

Maybe the FBI will build a wall around 'em. Amazon can then test out their drone-n-drop delivery plan. Other angry white people can donate snacks, beer, traps for squirrels, clean underpants, etc. for the cause, when they figure out what it is.

The funny thing about biology is, it doesn't really care about convenience. Some people simply cannot maintain conventional sleeping hours. The OP's dh decided to give it a go. I think that's very considerate of him. If it works, that would be great. If it doesn't, the OP should understand that biology is what it is, and some people are simply wired to keep different sleeping hours. It's how humans have evolved. If humans all slept eight hours solid through the night at the same time, they would be terribly vulnerable to predators and natural disasters. Having a few people awake throughout the night increased the risk of survival, from attacks to fire to anything that might endanger the group. Bi-modal sleep patterns likely evolved for the same reason - someone's awake when most of the clan is unconscious. This isn't a "bad" thing, nor is it a "good" thing. It just is. The OP shouldn't be made to feel like she's empowering laziness if her dh simply cannot maintain a nightly sleep, and she should hear ideas on how to make different schedules work. TM offered some insight. I have a friend whose husband works in entertainment and therefore late hours. The whole family stays up late and sleeps in late, comparatively. For them, that's perfectly normal. There's nothing wrong with changing a schedule, any more than there's something wrong with changing menues once someone is diagnosed with Celiac.

I think you're talking about two different things here. I understand your medical analogy was probably a spontaneous, off the cuff remark that just popped into your head. I know you aren't bringing any deep thesis to the table with that, and agree with you that research and practice are not the same animal. I just disagree with the premise that experience is valuable in general. If it contains erroneous information, that's not valuable to one looking for information (or the community, or society). If it contains opinions limited to one demographic but advertised for another, that's not valuable to one looking for content advertised (which is what I gather the OP is talking about, not young homeschoolers in general). And secondly, I do think that there is actual damage done. For example, there's an entire organization dedicated to the damage done to homeschoolers, most of which were educated under the auspice of religious "Truth," [Homeschoolers Anonymous]. The "experience" offered is often nothing more than confirmation bias and appeals to comfort a manufactured fear. As this is not only devoid of any research, facts, and accountability to any of the claims made, this is a good example of experience being meaningless, and when used as intended, is dangerous to the well being of children as well. Fwiw, I'm an unschooler. I'm also an "old timer," I guess, in that my youngest is in more than half way through his teen years. I've been doing this off and on almost ten years. Hardly an old timer around here, arguably. Anyway, I'd love advice, I'd love someone who has gone through what appears to me to be uncharted waters. It's really daunting to continue this path. I don't want to do it alone if I can help it. For me, families with young kids are uninteresting. There's nothing there I can take away for myself. I don't follow anyone, and I don't see a trend of homeschoolers pretending to be experts simply because I don't keep up with people in social media. From my perspective though, my own personal pet peeve is blogers who promote unschooling ideas only to find that are really promoting project based lessons, guided learning, and managed social experiences. I think stating one's unschooling family starts the day off with table work for 4 hours, as designed by mom, is deceptive. It annoys me to follow a link offered to help only to see something like this. If this is what the OP feels when clicking on blogs that promote themselves as something they are not, I sympathize.

There's a world of difference. Doctors and psychologists are trained in a field of expertise that is founded in research, objective data, deductive reasoning, analysis of facts, and continued experimentation. Homeschooling is free from any training or licensing. Regulation is not consistent across the country, and even then, the regulation focuses on the child's production, not the instructors' knowledge or practice. Personal experience is a great thing, but if it encourages erroneous information or neglects relevant education, it's relatively useless. In any case, the whole point of this thread commiserate with others who have discovered that people without personal experience are giving the impression they have it. And they don't. They can't. That's just silly, and an embarrassment to the rest of us.

I'm using energy to send the words on my computer screen to yours. Scientists do understand how this works. Thanks for explaining, though. I didn't understand your comment. BTW, I just finished the book, The Martian. There's lots of science in it that went way over my head, and lots of math that made my head spin, but it was such a great story! Talk about using energy made me think of it. Very clever story with regard to using a very limited amount of energy, but the character himself is worth the read, imo.

You believe scientists acknowledge a source of energy that heals people (how, exactly?) and has the ability to project people "astrally"?

In what way?

In my experience, if it's a biological thing, your experiment won't work in the long term. If that's the case, I'd chalk it up to natural causes, and figure out how to support each other with respect and courtesy. There's no reason he can't accommodate your needs, and there's no reason you can't accommodate his, too. I know how frustrating it can be to adjust to the reality that things aren't shaping up to the kind of family life you expected. Sometimes it can feel really deflating, but when you find something that works well for the both of you, you'll both feel empowered to do your best, and be your best, and your love and support for each other can be tremendous, even if it looks totally different than you once imagined. Good luck. :-)

Like any serious collector, I've even designed a few new models. :sleep:

BTW, if you type after the section you want to quote, the forum software will do the work for you (keeping the I suspect the idea of punishing a child for this behavior was considered excessive in this case. I think it may have become a bit more serious for some when certain punishments were offered as inspiration for what the OP could have done. I know punishments such as taking back the gift and a few more to teach a lesson caught my attention, and the attention of a few others. The post to which I first replied referred the idea that children cannot be allowed to disrespect anyone just because they are justifiably angry, tired, hungry, etc. I asked why, and why children are exempt from respect. For reference, I interpret inviting ideas, then going against them, to be disrespectful. I think this would be easily noticed were the other person an adult and not a child. In my opinion, if a child isn't allowed to express frustration or disappointment in his own home without being punished for it, it is unethical to knowingly place the child in that position when he may not yet have the necessary skills to avoid punishment. I stand by that. The OP, as you noted, did not punish the child, but came here to inquire if she should have. I said the idea of using punishment to condition a child to not express negative feelings when placed in a situation that he could not avoid is unethical, unkind, immature, and needy. I even italicized the word "idea" to draw attention to it, in hopes of reducing confusion just like this. I didn't say this about the OP, I said this about the idea in general. I tried to be very clear about that. I hear ya, but I think it is apparent that some comments are made to address a general idea (such as whether or not saying "ugh" is rude), some address a specific question (such as the original question posed by the OP), some address a particular thought inspired by the conversation (such as whether or not practical gifts are holiday worthy). I find myself scratching my head in response to threads here too, but this one I've paid pretty close attention to so it's not been confusing for me. My dd's wearing her xmas pjs right now! I hope you have an enjoyable family day. :)

The direction I see isn't: reefgazer > anyone and everyone else That's not what I'm taking away from your comments, and so the example of you and your mom doesn't work for me. Instead, I'm taking away: adults > children, and certainly parents > children I don't think you are obliged to justify yourself to me or anyone here. I don't think you've demonstrated any particularly abusive behavior for me to be concerned about. I will say I disagree with the general ideology that suggests children ought to be automatically expected to capitulate to the convenience of adults, without reciprocation. While I don't hear you articulating this directly, I find this idea supported in various posts in this thread. That's the direction to which I refer.