Honor Code

Mars wrote:


I'm still waiting for Italics to post anything that makes even a shred of sense. BYU would be better off abolishing the honor code? It's evil to enforce a signed moral contract?

rblack wrote:

rblack wrote:
I wish Unga well, whether he finds a way to play his last year at BYU or whether he seeks to move on to the NFL.

That said, I wish everyone would quit speculating on what happened. We don't know. I don't care.

That's good you feel that way, but you need to realize that politely asking people to not speculate isn't going to make a difference. Until the HC changes itself, we will continue - as we have - to see this happen.

What exactly would you take out of the honor code? Would you allow students to drink? Drink as long as it is only occasionally? Sleep with each other? Sleep with each other as long as it is a committed relationship? Sleep with each other as long as they promise to get married some day?

Schmoe wrote:
BYU didn't kick him off campus or make his transgressions a public ordeal. He made himself a public figure by playing football and he removed himself from campus after knowingly breaking a contract that he had signed. This pretty much makes the rest of your argument moot, so you probably should just stop at this point.

Italics wrote:
You think I would base a my opinion off of one occurrence? Don't assume that I form my convictions the same way you do.

Italics wrote:
I suppose not kicking someone off campus and making their transgressions/sins a public ordeal would be a good start. Listen, you can preach until your blue about how the system "protects the student" and doesn't make public announcements. That doesn't excuse anything. It DOESN'T prevent it from becoming a public ordeal - you know it, I know it, they know it. Saying "well it's not really OUR fault this happens," but being well aware that the way you are running things is contributing to it and allowing it to happen, is not a sound excuse.



Perhaps another solution would not be having situations where kids - who have for the most part lived a great life and are great kids - are kicked out of school and sent packing for first-time offenses. It adds insult to injury. Signing the HC should not require perfection. When people say things like "they shouldn't have signed it if they couldn't live it" is sort-sighted and doesn't require much intelligent or compassionate thought.

Italics wrote:
I suppose not kicking someone off campus and making their transgressions/sins a public ordeal would be a good start. Listen, you can preach until your blue about how the system "protects the student" and doesn't make public announcements. That doesn't excuse anything.

Italics wrote:
It DOESN'T prevent it from becoming a public ordeal - you know it, I know it, they know it. Saying "well it's not really OUR fault this happens," but being well aware that the way you are running things is contributing to it and allowing it to happen, is not a sound excuse.

Italics wrote:
Perhaps another solution would not be having situations where kids - who have for the most part lived a great life and are great kids - are kicked out of school and sent packing for first-time offenses. It adds insult to injury. Signing the HC should not require perfection. When people say things like "they shouldn't have signed it if they couldn't live it" is sort-sighted and doesn't require much intelligent or compassionate thought.

Italics wrote:

I'm still waiting for Italics to post anything that makes even a shred of sense. BYU would be better off abolishing the honor code? It's evil to enforce a signed moral contract?

Never said any of that.



When liberals/anti-mormons accuse people of our faith/politlcal ideaology of being inbreds who don't know how to comprehend the oppositions arguments or use logical arguments, it's because of people who say things like this.



And as much as I disagree with them, sometimes threads like this make it hard to argue with them. It's tough to defend some people who are on your side.

Italics wrote:
These are both extremely simple minded arguments. All of your arguments here have been simple minded.



"If there weren't consequences for doing bad things, would we keep doing them?" Yes. Duh. That's why society has laws.



Believe it or not, there are still punishments for sin WITHOUT the honor code. Oh good, now we can stop prosecuting murder! Currently, the "consequences" for breaking the "code" often times lead to students facing unnecessary ridicule, embarrassment, and humiliation. Which is their own fault, and no one else's. Like people on the child sexual abuse list. Often times, these kids are outcast and put into situations where they will have less support and be in an easier situation to sin. You mean giving in to sin leads to more sin? Nooo. Their education is a whole other topic. But hey, that's "they way it is," and it's "what's in the contract," so I guess that excuses it, right? Why question it when we can just mindlessly conform? Yeah, there are consequences to sin, and that's just the way God make it. But why give in to our conformist Father, right?



You're only fooling yourself if you seriously think the HC is preventing some gigantic multitude of sin on BYU's campus. Yeah, and speed limits on the freeway don't reduce deaths either. Right. Kids who want to drink will drink. Kids who want to have sex will have sex. And kids who go to BYU should do so because they don't want to do either. There certainly isn't a lack of applicants. Thousands of good kids are turned away every year because there's not enough room. Heck, a good number of things in the honor code are not even scriptural or based off of actual commandments, so most of the "code" isn't even preventing sin in the first place. We are commanded to follow the laws of the land, and when we choose to go to BYU, we make those our rules as well. Besides, where in the scriptures are we commanded to go home teaching?



But hey, not being given a chance to exercise self-discipline and agency for good is overrated. Because Harvey didn't have a chance to exercise his agency, right? Then why are we having this conversation... It's soooo much more efficient to be watched over and told what to do your entire life. Kind of like what the prophet does for us? It's a much better plan than testing people to see if they fear God more than man. Just ask Satan, he'll tell you all about how great a plan it is. When was the last time Satan forced you to do something good? Because I don't think he ever has.



That's a stretch at best. Not even worth responding to. Again, sounds like everything you've said so far. Good thing I'm bored.



Way to exercise the self-righteous ideology of "anyone who questions what I believe in must be a sinner/must value football over morality/etc" as well. Yes, you do sound self-righteous here. I appreciate the fact that you most likely agree with me on 90% of moral and political issues, but for our sake, I hope you never debate them with people who know what they're talking about. Kind of like how you shouldn't be debating any of this. Weak, unfounded, uninformed, invalid, straw-man arguments make any side look confused. Which is why you look confused here.



Never said any of that. Of course you didn't.



When liberals/anti-mormons accuse people of our faith/politlcal ideaology of being inbreds who don't know how to comprehend the oppositions arguments or use logical arguments, it's because of people who say things like this. What you've said.



And as much as I disagree with them, sometimes threads like this make it hard to argue with them. It's tough to defend some people who are on your side. Nonsensical statement.



Where do you guys get this stuff? Each post is more embarrassing than the last. Sounds like you're responding to yourself now.



I suppose not kicking someone off campus and making their transgressions/sins a public ordeal would be a good start. BYU didn't kick Harvey off of campus. BYU didn't make his sins public. You are a very confused little boy apparently. Listen, you can preach until your tsk tsk, can't even spell blue about how the system "protects the student" and doesn't make public announcements. That doesn't excuse anything. Yeah, the truth can't erase your lies I guess. Too bad. It DOESN'T prevent it from becoming a public ordeal - you know it, I know it, they know it. Who said public issues aren't public? Harvey's membership on the BYU football team was very public. Saying "well it's not really OUR fault this happens," but being well aware that the way you are running things is contributing to it and allowing it to happen, is not a sound excuse. This is Harvey's fault, no one else's. Stop being childish.



Perhaps another solution would not be having situations where kids - who have for the most part lived a great life and are great kids - are kicked out of school and sent packing for first-time offenses. This wasn't Harvey's first offense. And he wasn't kicked out of school. And most kids aren't kicked out for first offenses at BYU either. Again, showing some honesty and integrity in this discussion would help. It adds insult to injury. Signing the HC should not require perfection. No duh. It doesn't. When people say things like "they shouldn't have signed it if they couldn't live it" is sort-sighted and doesn't require much intelligent or compassionate thought. No, it's exactly right. Don't go to BYU if you want to have premarital sex. If you do go to BYU, don't have premarital sex. That's intelligent and a great long-term viewpoint. Sorry you don't understand.



But if you want to just join everyone else and form the most simple-minded responses you can, be my guest! I don't think I'll be joining you.



Here, I'll give you some ideas:



"Stop justifying sin" Please do.

"So what? You think they should just be able to drink, murder, and fornicate as much as they please?" (whoops, sorry, you took that one already) Makes about as much sense as your actual viewpoint.

"Every action has a consequence" No duh. This is your sarcastic talking point? That shows what major issues you have.

"So you think there should be no Honor Code at all?" This seems to be your viewpoint, yes. You've never cleared it up otherwise. Your arguments all lean in this direction.

"So people shouldn't be responsible?" Again, this being your sarcastic thought shows your gaping lack of logic here.



Take your pick. (HINT: Your decisions will be easier if you don't read anything I said before that) Everything would be easier if we don't read what you've said.



Or you could take the route of Sno, and just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being sinners who must only feel they way they do because they are breaking the commandments on a daily basis. I didn't read Sno write that. Feel free to lie though. Pride, assumed superiority, and self-righteousness are always great reinforcement for unjust accusation. That seems to be all your standing on so far.



Been there, debated that. Just not well, or sensibly.



So you think Harvey made a last-second decision to enter the SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT and give the finger to BYU? Really? According to Harvey, yes, that's his current decision. You don't think it just maybe may have been preemptive? Was Harvey responding to the honor code office, or was the honor code office responding to Harvey? We both know the real answer here, despite your claims.



And regardless, this isn't the first time we've had something like this happen. No duh. You think I would base a my opinion off of one occurrence? No, I think you're basing your opinion off of no occurrences. If you based it off of multiple, you wouldn't be ignorant enough to claim that everyone is booted after one offense. If you based it off of one occurrence, this one, you would realize that Harvey wasn't booted at all. You haven't realized either, and are thus seemingly basing your opinion on sheer naivety. Don't assume that I form my convictions the same way you do. Obviously you don't. I use logic and reason.

Italics wrote:

If there weren't consequences for doing bad things, would we keep doing them? Do those consequences help us? No, the rules help us avoid the unwanted consequences. So asking if these consequences will "help" Harvey is downright stupid, following the honor code would have helped him.

These are both extremely simple minded arguments.



"If there weren't consequences for doing bad things, would we keep doing them?"



Believe it or not, there are still punishments for sin WITHOUT the honor code.

Italics wrote:

But hey, not being given a chance to exercise self-discipline and agency for good is overrated. It's soooo much more efficient to be watched over and told what to do your entire life. It's a much better plan than testing people to see if they fear God more than man. Just ask Satan, he'll tell you all about how great a plan it is.

Mars wrote:

These are both extremely simple minded arguments. All of your arguments here have been simple minded.



"If there weren't consequences for doing bad things, would we keep doing them?" Yes. Duh. That's why society has laws.



Believe it or not, there are still punishments for sin WITHOUT the honor code. Oh good, now we can stop prosecuting murder! Currently, the "consequences" for breaking the "code" often times lead to students facing unnecessary ridicule, embarrassment, and humiliation. Which is their own fault, and no one else's. Like people on the child sexual abuse list. Often times, these kids are outcast and put into situations where they will have less support and be in an easier situation to sin. You mean giving in to sin leads to more sin? Nooo. Their education is a whole other topic. But hey, that's "they way it is," and it's "what's in the contract," so I guess that excuses it, right? Why question it when we can just mindlessly conform? Yeah, there are consequences to sin, and that's just the way God make it. But why give in to our conformist Father, right?



You're only fooling yourself if you seriously think the HC is preventing some gigantic multitude of sin on BYU's campus. Yeah, and speed limits on the freeway don't reduce deaths either. Right. Kids who want to drink will drink. Kids who want to have sex will have sex. And kids who go to BYU should do so because they don't want to do either. There certainly isn't a lack of applicants. Thousands of good kids are turned away every year because there's not enough room. Heck, a good number of things in the honor code are not even scriptural or based off of actual commandments, so most of the "code" isn't even preventing sin in the first place. We are commanded to follow the laws of the land, and when we choose to go to BYU, we make those our rules as well. Besides, where in the scriptures are we commanded to go home teaching?



But hey, not being given a chance to exercise self-discipline and agency for good is overrated. Because Harvey didn't have a chance to exercise his agency, right? Then why are we having this conversation... It's soooo much more efficient to be watched over and told what to do your entire life. Kind of like what the prophet does for us? It's a much better plan than testing people to see if they fear God more than man. Just ask Satan, he'll tell you all about how great a plan it is. When was the last time Satan forced you to do something good? Because I don't think he ever has.



That's a stretch at best. Not even worth responding to. Again, sounds like everything you've said so far. Good thing I'm bored.



Way to exercise the self-righteous ideology of "anyone who questions what I believe in must be a sinner/must value football over morality/etc" as well. Yes, you do sound self-righteous here. I appreciate the fact that you most likely agree with me on 90% of moral and political issues, but for our sake, I hope you never debate them with people who know what they're talking about. Kind of like how you shouldn't be debating any of this. Weak, unfounded, uninformed, invalid, straw-man arguments make any side look confused. Which is why you look confused here.



Never said any of that. Of course you didn't.



When liberals/anti-mormons accuse people of our faith/politlcal ideaology of being inbreds who don't know how to comprehend the oppositions arguments or use logical arguments, it's because of people who say things like this. What you've said.



And as much as I disagree with them, sometimes threads like this make it hard to argue with them. It's tough to defend some people who are on your side. Nonsensical statement.



Where do you guys get this stuff? Each post is more embarrassing than the last. Sounds like you're responding to yourself now.



I suppose not kicking someone off campus and making their transgressions/sins a public ordeal would be a good start. BYU didn't kick Harvey off of campus. BYU didn't make his sins public. You are a very confused little boy apparently. Listen, you can preach until your tsk tsk, can't even spell blue about how the system "protects the student" and doesn't make public announcements. That doesn't excuse anything. Yeah, the truth can't erase your lies I guess. Too bad. It DOESN'T prevent it from becoming a public ordeal - you know it, I know it, they know it. Who said public issues aren't public? Harvey's membership on the BYU football team was very public. Saying "well it's not really OUR fault this happens," but being well aware that the way you are running things is contributing to it and allowing it to happen, is not a sound excuse. This is Harvey's fault, no one else's. Stop being childish.



Perhaps another solution would not be having situations where kids - who have for the most part lived a great life and are great kids - are kicked out of school and sent packing for first-time offenses. This wasn't Harvey's first offense. And he wasn't kicked out of school. And most kids aren't kicked out for first offenses at BYU either. Again, showing some honesty and integrity in this discussion would help. It adds insult to injury. Signing the HC should not require perfection. No duh. It doesn't. When people say things like "they shouldn't have signed it if they couldn't live it" is sort-sighted and doesn't require much intelligent or compassionate thought. No, it's exactly right. Don't go to BYU if you want to have premarital sex. If you do go to BYU, don't have premarital sex. That's intelligent and a great long-term viewpoint. Sorry you don't understand.



But if you want to just join everyone else and form the most simple-minded responses you can, be my guest! I don't think I'll be joining you.



Here, I'll give you some ideas:



"Stop justifying sin" Please do.

"So what? You think they should just be able to drink, murder, and fornicate as much as they please?" (whoops, sorry, you took that one already) Makes about as much sense as your actual viewpoint.

"Every action has a consequence" No duh. This is your sarcastic talking point? That shows what major issues you have.

"So you think there should be no Honor Code at all?" This seems to be your viewpoint, yes. You've never cleared it up otherwise. Your arguments all lean in this direction.

"So people shouldn't be responsible?" Again, this being your sarcastic thought shows your gaping lack of logic here.



Take your pick. (HINT: Your decisions will be easier if you don't read anything I said before that) Everything would be easier if we don't read what you've said.



Or you could take the route of Sno, and just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being sinners who must only feel they way they do because they are breaking the commandments on a daily basis. I didn't read Sno write that. Feel free to lie though. Pride, assumed superiority, and self-righteousness are always great reinforcement for unjust accusation. That seems to be all your standing on so far.



Been there, debated that. Just not well, or sensibly.



So you think Harvey made a last-second decision to enter the SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT and give the finger to BYU? Really? According to Harvey, yes, that's his current decision. You don't think it just maybe may have been preemptive? Was Harvey responding to the honor code office, or was the honor code office responding to Harvey? We both know the real answer here, despite your claims.



And regardless, this isn't the first time we've had something like this happen. No duh. You think I would base a my opinion off of one occurrence? No, I think you're basing your opinion off of no occurrences. If you based it off of multiple, you wouldn't be ignorant enough to claim that everyone is booted after one offense. If you based it off of one occurrence, this one, you would realize that Harvey wasn't booted at all. You haven't realized either, and are thus seemingly basing your opinion on sheer naivety. Don't assume that I form my convictions the same way you do. Obviously you don't. I use logic and reason.

mraven wrote:

Italics wrote:
These are both extremely simple minded arguments. All of your arguments here have been simple minded.



"If there weren't consequences for doing bad things, would we keep doing them?" Yes. Duh. That's why society has laws.



Believe it or not, there are still punishments for sin WITHOUT the honor code. Oh good, now we can stop prosecuting murder! Currently, the "consequences" for breaking the "code" often times lead to students facing unnecessary ridicule, embarrassment, and humiliation. Which is their own fault, and no one else's. Like people on the child sexual abuse list. Often times, these kids are outcast and put into situations where they will have less support and be in an easier situation to sin. You mean giving in to sin leads to more sin? Nooo. Their education is a whole other topic. But hey, that's "they way it is," and it's "what's in the contract," so I guess that excuses it, right? Why question it when we can just mindlessly conform? Yeah, there are consequences to sin, and that's just the way God make it. But why give in to our conformist Father, right?



You're only fooling yourself if you seriously think the HC is preventing some gigantic multitude of sin on BYU's campus. Yeah, and speed limits on the freeway don't reduce deaths either. Right. Kids who want to drink will drink. Kids who want to have sex will have sex. And kids who go to BYU should do so because they don't want to do either. There certainly isn't a lack of applicants. Thousands of good kids are turned away every year because there's not enough room. Heck, a good number of things in the honor code are not even scriptural or based off of actual commandments, so most of the "code" isn't even preventing sin in the first place. We are commanded to follow the laws of the land, and when we choose to go to BYU, we make those our rules as well. Besides, where in the scriptures are we commanded to go home teaching?



But hey, not being given a chance to exercise self-discipline and agency for good is overrated. Because Harvey didn't have a chance to exercise his agency, right? Then why are we having this conversation... It's soooo much more efficient to be watched over and told what to do your entire life. Kind of like what the prophet does for us? It's a much better plan than testing people to see if they fear God more than man. Just ask Satan, he'll tell you all about how great a plan it is. When was the last time Satan forced you to do something good? Because I don't think he ever has.



That's a stretch at best. Not even worth responding to. Again, sounds like everything you've said so far. Good thing I'm bored.



Way to exercise the self-righteous ideology of "anyone who questions what I believe in must be a sinner/must value football over morality/etc" as well. Yes, you do sound self-righteous here. I appreciate the fact that you most likely agree with me on 90% of moral and political issues, but for our sake, I hope you never debate them with people who know what they're talking about. Kind of like how you shouldn't be debating any of this. Weak, unfounded, uninformed, invalid, straw-man arguments make any side look confused. Which is why you look confused here.



Never said any of that. Of course you didn't.



When liberals/anti-mormons accuse people of our faith/politlcal ideaology of being inbreds who don't know how to comprehend the oppositions arguments or use logical arguments, it's because of people who say things like this. What you've said.



And as much as I disagree with them, sometimes threads like this make it hard to argue with them. It's tough to defend some people who are on your side. Nonsensical statement.



Where do you guys get this stuff? Each post is more embarrassing than the last. Sounds like you're responding to yourself now.



I suppose not kicking someone off campus and making their transgressions/sins a public ordeal would be a good start. BYU didn't kick Harvey off of campus. BYU didn't make his sins public. You are a very confused little boy apparently. Listen, you can preach until your tsk tsk, can't even spell blue about how the system "protects the student" and doesn't make public announcements. That doesn't excuse anything. Yeah, the truth can't erase your lies I guess. Too bad. It DOESN'T prevent it from becoming a public ordeal - you know it, I know it, they know it. Who said public issues aren't public? Harvey's membership on the BYU football team was very public. Saying "well it's not really OUR fault this happens," but being well aware that the way you are running things is contributing to it and allowing it to happen, is not a sound excuse. This is Harvey's fault, no one else's. Stop being childish.



Perhaps another solution would not be having situations where kids - who have for the most part lived a great life and are great kids - are kicked out of school and sent packing for first-time offenses. This wasn't Harvey's first offense. And he wasn't kicked out of school. And most kids aren't kicked out for first offenses at BYU either. Again, showing some honesty and integrity in this discussion would help. It adds insult to injury. Signing the HC should not require perfection. No duh. It doesn't. When people say things like "they shouldn't have signed it if they couldn't live it" is sort-sighted and doesn't require much intelligent or compassionate thought. No, it's exactly right. Don't go to BYU if you want to have premarital sex. If you do go to BYU, don't have premarital sex. That's intelligent and a great long-term viewpoint. Sorry you don't understand.



But if you want to just join everyone else and form the most simple-minded responses you can, be my guest! I don't think I'll be joining you.



Here, I'll give you some ideas:



"Stop justifying sin" Please do.

"So what? You think they should just be able to drink, murder, and fornicate as much as they please?" (whoops, sorry, you took that one already) Makes about as much sense as your actual viewpoint.

"Every action has a consequence" No duh. This is your sarcastic talking point? That shows what major issues you have.

"So you think there should be no Honor Code at all?" This seems to be your viewpoint, yes. You've never cleared it up otherwise. Your arguments all lean in this direction.

"So people shouldn't be responsible?" Again, this being your sarcastic thought shows your gaping lack of logic here.



Take your pick. (HINT: Your decisions will be easier if you don't read anything I said before that) Everything would be easier if we don't read what you've said.



Or you could take the route of Sno, and just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being sinners who must only feel they way they do because they are breaking the commandments on a daily basis. I didn't read Sno write that. Feel free to lie though. Pride, assumed superiority, and self-righteousness are always great reinforcement for unjust accusation. That seems to be all your standing on so far.



Been there, debated that. Just not well, or sensibly.



So you think Harvey made a last-second decision to enter the SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT and give the finger to BYU? Really? According to Harvey, yes, that's his current decision. You don't think it just maybe may have been preemptive? Was Harvey responding to the honor code office, or was the honor code office responding to Harvey? We both know the real answer here, despite your claims.



And regardless, this isn't the first time we've had something like this happen. No duh. You think I would base a my opinion off of one occurrence? No, I think you're basing your opinion off of no occurrences. If you based it off of multiple, you wouldn't be ignorant enough to claim that everyone is booted after one offense. If you based it off of one occurrence, this one, you would realize that Harvey wasn't booted at all. You haven't realized either, and are thus seemingly basing your opinion on sheer naivety. Don't assume that I form my convictions the same way you do. Obviously you don't. I use logic and reason.

Owned!

CannonCougar85 wrote:
LET IT DIE GENTLEMEN!!!

Or move this thread to The Lounge or something.

How about we talk some football? Huh? Anybody?

mraven wrote:

Italics wrote:
These are both extremely simple minded arguments. All of your arguments here have been simple minded.



"If there weren't consequences for doing bad things, would we keep doing them?" Yes. Duh. That's why society has laws.



Believe it or not, there are still punishments for sin WITHOUT the honor code. Oh good, now we can stop prosecuting murder! Currently, the "consequences" for breaking the "code" often times lead to students facing unnecessary ridicule, embarrassment, and humiliation. Which is their own fault, and no one else's. Like people on the child sexual abuse list. Often times, these kids are outcast and put into situations where they will have less support and be in an easier situation to sin. You mean giving in to sin leads to more sin? Nooo. Their education is a whole other topic. But hey, that's "they way it is," and it's "what's in the contract," so I guess that excuses it, right? Why question it when we can just mindlessly conform? Yeah, there are consequences to sin, and that's just the way God make it. But why give in to our conformist Father, right?



You're only fooling yourself if you seriously think the HC is preventing some gigantic multitude of sin on BYU's campus. Yeah, and speed limits on the freeway don't reduce deaths either. Right. Kids who want to drink will drink. Kids who want to have sex will have sex. And kids who go to BYU should do so because they don't want to do either. There certainly isn't a lack of applicants. Thousands of good kids are turned away every year because there's not enough room. Heck, a good number of things in the honor code are not even scriptural or based off of actual commandments, so most of the "code" isn't even preventing sin in the first place. We are commanded to follow the laws of the land, and when we choose to go to BYU, we make those our rules as well. Besides, where in the scriptures are we commanded to go home teaching?



But hey, not being given a chance to exercise self-discipline and agency for good is overrated. Because Harvey didn't have a chance to exercise his agency, right? Then why are we having this conversation... It's soooo much more efficient to be watched over and told what to do your entire life. Kind of like what the prophet does for us? It's a much better plan than testing people to see if they fear God more than man. Just ask Satan, he'll tell you all about how great a plan it is. When was the last time Satan forced you to do something good? Because I don't think he ever has.



That's a stretch at best. Not even worth responding to. Again, sounds like everything you've said so far. Good thing I'm bored.



Way to exercise the self-righteous ideology of "anyone who questions what I believe in must be a sinner/must value football over morality/etc" as well. Yes, you do sound self-righteous here. I appreciate the fact that you most likely agree with me on 90% of moral and political issues, but for our sake, I hope you never debate them with people who know what they're talking about. Kind of like how you shouldn't be debating any of this. Weak, unfounded, uninformed, invalid, straw-man arguments make any side look confused. Which is why you look confused here.



Never said any of that. Of course you didn't.



When liberals/anti-mormons accuse people of our faith/politlcal ideaology of being inbreds who don't know how to comprehend the oppositions arguments or use logical arguments, it's because of people who say things like this. What you've said.



And as much as I disagree with them, sometimes threads like this make it hard to argue with them. It's tough to defend some people who are on your side. Nonsensical statement.



Where do you guys get this stuff? Each post is more embarrassing than the last. Sounds like you're responding to yourself now.



I suppose not kicking someone off campus and making their transgressions/sins a public ordeal would be a good start. BYU didn't kick Harvey off of campus. BYU didn't make his sins public. You are a very confused little boy apparently. Listen, you can preach until your tsk tsk, can't even spell blue about how the system "protects the student" and doesn't make public announcements. That doesn't excuse anything. Yeah, the truth can't erase your lies I guess. Too bad. It DOESN'T prevent it from becoming a public ordeal - you know it, I know it, they know it. Who said public issues aren't public? Harvey's membership on the BYU football team was very public. Saying "well it's not really OUR fault this happens," but being well aware that the way you are running things is contributing to it and allowing it to happen, is not a sound excuse. This is Harvey's fault, no one else's. Stop being childish.



Perhaps another solution would not be having situations where kids - who have for the most part lived a great life and are great kids - are kicked out of school and sent packing for first-time offenses. This wasn't Harvey's first offense. And he wasn't kicked out of school. And most kids aren't kicked out for first offenses at BYU either. Again, showing some honesty and integrity in this discussion would help. It adds insult to injury. Signing the HC should not require perfection. No duh. It doesn't. When people say things like "they shouldn't have signed it if they couldn't live it" is sort-sighted and doesn't require much intelligent or compassionate thought. No, it's exactly right. Don't go to BYU if you want to have premarital sex. If you do go to BYU, don't have premarital sex. That's intelligent and a great long-term viewpoint. Sorry you don't understand.



But if you want to just join everyone else and form the most simple-minded responses you can, be my guest! I don't think I'll be joining you.



Here, I'll give you some ideas:



"Stop justifying sin" Please do.

"So what? You think they should just be able to drink, murder, and fornicate as much as they please?" (whoops, sorry, you took that one already) Makes about as much sense as your actual viewpoint.

"Every action has a consequence" No duh. This is your sarcastic talking point? That shows what major issues you have.

"So you think there should be no Honor Code at all?" This seems to be your viewpoint, yes. You've never cleared it up otherwise. Your arguments all lean in this direction.

"So people shouldn't be responsible?" Again, this being your sarcastic thought shows your gaping lack of logic here.



Take your pick. (HINT: Your decisions will be easier if you don't read anything I said before that) Everything would be easier if we don't read what you've said.



Or you could take the route of Sno, and just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being sinners who must only feel they way they do because they are breaking the commandments on a daily basis. I didn't read Sno write that. Feel free to lie though. Pride, assumed superiority, and self-righteousness are always great reinforcement for unjust accusation. That seems to be all your standing on so far.



Been there, debated that. Just not well, or sensibly.



So you think Harvey made a last-second decision to enter the SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT and give the finger to BYU? Really? According to Harvey, yes, that's his current decision. You don't think it just maybe may have been preemptive? Was Harvey responding to the honor code office, or was the honor code office responding to Harvey? We both know the real answer here, despite your claims.



And regardless, this isn't the first time we've had something like this happen. No duh. You think I would base a my opinion off of one occurrence? No, I think you're basing your opinion off of no occurrences. If you based it off of multiple, you wouldn't be ignorant enough to claim that everyone is booted after one offense. If you based it off of one occurrence, this one, you would realize that Harvey wasn't booted at all. You haven't realized either, and are thus seemingly basing your opinion on sheer naivety. Don't assume that I form my convictions the same way you do. Obviously you don't. I use logic and reason.

Owned!

Italics wrote:
I got about two paragraphs into it and stopped when I realized that it was nothing but Mars' signature short-sighted insults. Once you've read one or two of them, you've basically read them all. Sorry all of you are so offended by a differing opinion. If it makes you feel any better, though, reading your "arguments" has really only strengthened my stance on all this.

Italics wrote:



You'd know better than I would. I got about two paragraphs into it and stopped when I realized that it was nothing but Mars' signature short-sighted insults. Once you've read one or two of them, you've basically read them all.



Sorry all of you are so offended by a differing opinion. If it makes you feel any better, though, reading your "arguments" has really only strengthened my stance on all this. Guess I was never meant to be a "Utah Mormon."

rblack wrote:

You'd know better than I would. I got about two paragraphs into it and stopped when I realized that it was nothing but Mars' signature short-sighted insults. Once you've read one or two of them, you've basically read them all.



Sorry all of you are so offended by a differing opinion. If it makes you feel any better, though, reading your "arguments" has really only strengthened my stance on all this. Guess I was never meant to be a "Utah Mormon."

I guess you must really hate us NY Mormons. We're so intolerant. :roll: