The LDS church is fond of saying that "no success can compensate for failure in the home". 






A home is a house with love. A house is made up of many components, and so is love. 






I propose that no success can compensate for failure in the bedroom. However this belief can often lead to performance anxiety, which all goes to the larger issue of how you define success...






But lets expand the analogy. What other rooms are their in a house? Very hungry Mormons believe that no success can compensate for failure in the kitchen. 



Our toilet plunger can attest that no other success can compensate for failure in the bathroom...




The church has been very successful at keeping many facts in the closet, but less successful at keeping people in the closet.  






Of course what they mean is no success can compensate for failure with your family. But does passing around sayings like this make anyone's life better? Do people really decide to succeed at work, or politics instead of succeeding at home? Or are some people just bad at one aspect of their lives, and good at another? Or are people who succeed in work, more likely to succeed at home? 




All in all, if our income providers didn't succeed outside of the home, we wouldn't have a home, which sort of renders the whole argument pointless. 




As far as individuals are concerned, many Bill Clinton supporters would disagree with the conclusion. That he did a lot to help the world, and that he would like to be judged for his life in general, not just the way his relationship with his wife worked out. Who knows what went wrong their? Was she just not into succeeding in the bedroom with him, or he with her? Do they like each other? Did they succeed? Not in the Mormon sense of the word, in that they were not faithful. But the Mormons are right, as a whole. Many societal problems as a whole can be caused by the family falling apart. But is it a matter of compensation? Do people really choose success outside of the family and therefore they have failure in the family. I don't think so. It wasn't Clinton's desire for success in politics that hurt his family, it was his desire to have success with other women... 






Good church leaders will point out that success at church can not, and should not, compete with success at home. But if the real goal is choosing success at home, by spending more time there, instead of success at work, why are young fathers asked to spend 8 hours at church on Sunday away from their family? 






I know, I know, your trying to do the whole it takes a village thing, sometimes it doesn't work. 




I know its not 100% true, if you define truth as the way I was told it was. But the 3 witnesses never denied it. Did my ancestors see something in Kirkland? 



Is any of it true? Maybe its not "true" but it has a good system of promoting only charity minded people, willing to make sacrifices for the community, and able to succeed in business and in the home. Maybe it is good, even if its not true. No. Things that aren't what they say they are, are not of God. But nothing is what it says it is. But maybe I don't care. All I want is success. I want to have success, personally, and with my family. And I want them to find success. I want what everyone wants. I want what the church wants, even if they make nonsensical weird sayings that I don't want to carry around as truisms anymore to describe the particular success that they want. 

We must not allow a nuclear 9-11

Reasons to agree:

1. Ron Paul can say all he wants that Iran won't ever use a nuclear weapon against us. He has a right to evaluate the intelligence, and come to that conclusion. However everyone would have to agree that we must not allow a nuclear 9-11. That is the starting point. It is so obvious that it has to be acknowledged. To allow a nuclear 9-11 would be the worst thing that could happen to this planet. If our federal government can not tell our citizens that they are going to be willing to kill hundreds or thousands of Iranian scientist and their families who might be with them at these nuclear facilities, to prevent them from getting the bomb, then we need to tell the residents of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago to consider moving outside of the blast zone. The leaders in Iran are so stupid that their may be greater than a 3% chance that they would try to sneek a bomb into our country. 


2. The sacrifices proposed to prevent a nuclear 9/11 are not as bad as living through a nuclear 9/11. 9/11 caused thousands of Deaths, a nuclear 9/11 could kill millions. Most of the sacrifices being proposed, that supposedly limit our privacy, are worth the price. It's easy to make childish theoretical arguments that sound good on paper, about never invading people's privacy. But you don't have a right to privacy in public places. 


3. A nuclear 9/11 would likely result in the complete destruction in any nation that sympathizes with Jihadist. We should, of course, morn our own dead. But it would necessarily result in the death of many more people from Jihadist supporting countries. 


4. We all want our civil liberty, but often one persons privacy is not worth all of our lives. 


5. No other likely challenge that we face besides a nuclear 9/11 has the potential of killing millions of Americans. 


6. The primary responsibility of the US federal government is protecting is protecting the US citizens. 


7. Muslims all over the world should try to prevent a nuclear 9/11. Reasons that Muslims should agree: A nuclear 9-11 would not cause America to withdraw from the world stage. We would destroy any country that has people in it that smiled on the day that America was attacked, the wrest of the world would support us in any vengeance that we wanted, and our culture would not be the one that would go up in flames afterword. A nuclear 9-11 would not stop the spread of western culture. A nuclear 9-11 would not stop the spread of woman's rights, or gay rights. A nuclear 9-11 would not stop the spread of democracy. A nuclear 9-11 would not accomplish any of the goals of the Muslim community.We will prevent one country from invading another country. You don't need to worry, Iran, that someone will attack you if you don't have a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon will make you less secure, not more secure.


8. A nuclear 9/11 would harm the environment more any other disaster that our country could face. Even liberals who are concerned with overcrowding should be concerned (just joking!). 


9. A nuclear 9/11 would likely result in more war, which would harm the environment more than WWII. 
   Even liberals who are concerned with overcrowding should be concerned (just joking!). 


10. Sure, this is a non-specific argument which, if in-artfully used, could justify actions that would actually result in more nuclear terrorism. You are reading into it that we will take this argument, and use it stupidly, but the argument is still sound. Perhaps it is done through diplomacy, perhaps it is done in other ways, but it is better that we kill 100 Iranian scientist and their families, than we let them build a bomb that has a 10% chance of killing 10 million Americans. Just doing the math, it is better that 100 Iranians die than 1,000,000 Americans. Perhaps, the life of a free person is of more worth than the life of someone living in Iran. It is less likely that the American beats his wife, kills his sister in honor killings, is contributing to hardcore persecution of minorities, etc. It is less likely that an Iranian is working towards a cure for cancer, and more likely that they are planning how to kill the Jews. 

Reasons to disagree:

1.  We can't control our borders so well that we could prevent a nuclear suitcase bomb from being snuck into our country. 

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. The environment.


2. Mankind


3. Preventing Human suffering


4. Preventing the cycle of violence that would result when America demanded vengeance


5. Fear of terrorist attacks

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Freedom from government monitoring, from those who are resisting CIA and FBI expansion of powers


2. Freedom from other countries telling them to not build bombs, from countries like Iran that is seeking nuclear powers.


3. Revenge for perceived wrongs, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America


4. Stopping the spread of Western Culture, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.


5. Stopping the spread of women's rights, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.


6. Stopping the spread of sexual freedom, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.


7. Stopping the spread of the right to divorce, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.


8. Stopping the spread of homosexual rights, from religious Muslims who want a nuclear 9-11 in America and think a nuclear 9-11 would cause America to withdraw from the world stage.


9. Fear that someone would attack, if they don't have a bomb to scare them away.

Common Interest

1. Prevention of the loss of innocent life.


2. Prevention of injustice.


3. Fear that things could get out of hand, or would not go according to plan. 

Opposing Interest

1. The spread of American culture 


2. The spread of Islam


3. National pride 


4. The spread of perceived sinfulness


5. 
   Jealousy (if your older brother has a BB gun you want one too). I am tying in those who are not concerned with nuclear proliferation to those who do not believe we need to stop a nuclear 911.
   
   

Score: 

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web-pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score, based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +1

Reasons to disagree: -0

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0 

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0 

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

The US Federal Government should help threatened Islamic states with public schools

Reasons to agree:

1. 
   
   
   
   

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Books that agree:

1.  

Books that disagree:

1. 
   

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. 
   

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. 
   

Common Interest

1. 
   

Opposing Interest

1. 
   

Images That agree:

1.   

Images That disagree:

1. 
   

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. 
   

Websites that disagree

1.  

Related arguments:

1. 
   

Score: 

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web-pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score, based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +1

Reasons to disagree: -0

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0 

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0 

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Jihadist are most likely to use a nuclear weapon

Reasons to agree:

1. Jihadist are not trying to lift their country up, they are just trying to bring down America.


2. Jihadist are willing to commit suicide in order to advance their cause.


3. Jihadist have no return address for us to bomb.


4. Jihadist don't think that we can retaliate. They do not know that we would destroy the middle east if a bomb was detonated in America, Europe, or Asia. They may miss calculate their strength, or think God will help them, making them most likely to use a nuclear weapon. They don't have an organized command structure, and so their are thousands of 
   Jihadist trying to get nuclear weapons. If any of them miscalculate our willingness to destroy the middle east, they could make a fatal mistake. 

Reasons to disagree:

1.  Jihadist know that if a nuclear bomb went off in America, the whole world would destroy them.


2. We can tell where a bomb would come from. Anyone who allowed the bomg to go off would be killed.


3. Jihadist have lots of return addresses. If someone smuggles a nuclear bomb into the United States and detonates it we will bomb the middle east out of existence. Fire and sand make glass, and when we're done with the middle east it will look like Superman's dad's apartment on Krypton. 

Score: 

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web-pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score, based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +4

Reasons to disagree: -3

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0 

Books that disagree: -0

Web-pages that agree: -0 

Web-pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Alcohol is a bigger problem for America than terrorism

Reasons to agree:

1. Alcohol consumption leads to many societal and health problems.
2. Alcohol-related harm impacts the drinker and those around them.
3. The number of deaths related to alcohol far outstrips deaths caused by terrorism.
4. Alcohol causes 85,000 deaths in America each year. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals were grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year
5. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
6. 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
7. 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
8. 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
9. 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
10. 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
11. 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
12. 5% of all deaths from circulatory system diseases are attributed to alcohol.

Reasons to disagree:

1. You can fight terrorism; you can't fight stupid people. Another way of saying the same thing: Unlike terrorism, alcohol consumption is essentially a personal choice and societal issue, not a direct security threat.
2. We tried abolition, but abolition didn't work. Another way of saying the same thing: Prohibition efforts have historically proven unsuccessful and damaging.

Score:

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +9

Reasons to disagree: -2

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web pages that agree: -0

Web pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Pro Evidence

1. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths each year than opioids (source: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).
2. Alcohol-related issues cost the United States approximately $249 billion in 2010 (source: CDC).
3. Con Evidence
4. Prohibition led to increased organized crime and didn't significantly decrease alcohol consumption (source: History.com).

Pro Books

1. "Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation" by Craig MacAndrew
2. "The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control" by David F. Musto

Con Books:

1. "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" by Daniel Okrent

Pro Videos

1. TED Talk: "The Harm in a Drink"
2. Documentary: HBO's "Risky Drinking"

Con Videos

1. TED Talk: "Why Prohibition Never Works"

Pro Organizations and Websites

1. Alcoholics Anonymous
2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Con Organizations and Website:

1. Reason Foundation
2. Cato Institute

Pro Podcasts

1. Alcohol Mastery Podcast
2. The Bubble Hour

Con Podcasts

1. The Cato Daily Podcast

Pro Experts

Unbiased Experts

1. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Benefits of Belief Acceptance

1. Physiological Needs: Improved health due to less alcohol-related disease
2. Safety Needs: Reduced accidents and violence linked to alcohol
3. Social Belonging: Stronger relationships due to less alcohol-related strife
4. Esteem: Greater personal accomplishment from managing alcohol consumption
5. Self-Actualization: More clarity and focus on personal goals

Ethics

1. Beneficence: Reducing harm caused by alcohol improves public health and welfare
2. Justice: Acknowledging the societal impact of alcohol can lead to better policies and interventions

Recognizing that alcohol may be a bigger problem than terrorism doesn't necessarily imply a call for law changes or the reintroduction of Prohibition-like restrictions. It's an assessment of societal issues, public health concerns, and cultural dynamics that can be distorted by collective attention bias. This perspective underscores the potential need for amplified education, advocacy, and supportive systems to mitigate the effects of alcohol misuse.

Moreover, comparing the impacts of alcohol to terrorism accentuates the ways we prioritize and respond to divergent societal challenges. This comparison facilitates conversations about resource distribution, policy formation, and societal perspectives.

Ultimately, these discussions aim to foster a better understanding, stimulate productive dialogues, and uncover innovative solutions that enhance public health and societal well-being, underpinned by a focused, organized cost-benefit analysis for making informed decisions.

Fundamental Beliefs or Principles:

1. The comparison between alcohol and terrorism assumes that both factors significantly impact American society.
2. Rejecting this belief implies disagreement with the premise that alcohol-related issues pose a comparable or larger societal challenge than terrorism.

Alternate Expressions:

1. "Alcohol's impact in America overshadows the terror threat."
2. #AlcoholVsTerrorism

Belief Validation Criteria:

1. The strength of this belief could be assessed by examining statistical data on alcohol-related fatalities, economic costs, healthcare expenses, societal impacts versus the number of lives lost, economic damage, and societal trauma caused by terrorism.

Key Stakeholders:

1. Critical stakeholders include public health officials, alcohol industry, anti-alcohol & sobriety advocacy groups, law enforcement, counter-terrorism experts, government policymakers, and the public. Their interests and objectives can range from public safety, economic prosperity, freedom of choice, to national security.

Common Ground:

1. All parties likely share a common interest in ensuring public safety, health, and well-being.
2. They would also agree on reducing the harm caused by both alcohol misuse and terrorism.

Differences and Obstacles:
Significant differences include perceptions of threats and risk, societal attitudes toward alcohol and terrorism, and proposed solutions (law enforcement vs. public health strategies).

Dialogue Strategies:
Emphasizing shared values, utilizing empathetic listening, focusing on evidence-based discussions, fostering open and respectful dialogue, and promoting collaborative problem-solving can encourage commitment to reason and evidence-based conflict resolution.

Educational Resources:
Resources could include reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on alcohol-related harm, studies from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), research on terrorism's impact from institutions like the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and more.

Contextual Understanding:
Clarification of terms like "alcohol misuse," "public health issue," "terrorism," "societal impact," and "evidence-based decision making" can enhance understanding.

Your input is crucial in building an inclusive, evidence-based understanding of this topic. We invite you to contribute and explore these areas on our websites, Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange, as part of our collective intelligence initiative.