What's new
By:

Details of cannabinoid companies the LDS Church is invested in

Harambe said:
No, I think your argument is dumb because you appear not to have any real argument for/against the subject(The churches push back on Prop 2). All you've provided is logic that attempts to innoculate against someone else's opinion.
Click to expand...
I can only assume that you didn't read the article that you are arguing about.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I can only assume that you didn't read the article that you are arguing about.
Click to expand...

Yeah... a guy that's staunchly against religious zealots using "God's authority" to sway politics, and has been for years, isn't going to read an article providing a view that turns a church's stance sideways. Said guy probably hasn't read any of the other articles, that date back quite some time. Shouldn't said guy be jumping on the chance to derail, and depreciate the church's influence by pointing at cold hard numbers?

You've been living under a rock if this is the first time you've seen the shady, albeit financially lucrative, investment companies the Church runs with.

Please allow me to point out that you may have missed the simple argument I offered in response to your question of does anyone believe they couldn't change investments. Let me apply it more specifically for you, in a way that perhaps illustrates why I believe your question to be flawed. Why would the church change their investments(which costs money), when they're doing nothing illegal, AND making money hand over fist? Of course they could, but those companies could blow up and release a Balrog from the planets core. But why would they? What's their incentive to change? There isn't one. Not until the people of the church call on them to support their stated values, which does not headline financial gain.
 
Harambe said:
Yeah... a guy that's staunchly against religious zealots using "God's authority" to sway politics, and has been for years, isn't going to read an article providing a view that turns a church's stance sideways. Said guy probably hasn't read any of the other articles, that date back quite some time. Shouldn't said guy be jumping on the chance to derail, and depreciate the church's influence by pointing at cold hard numbers?

You've been living under a rock if this is the first time you've seen the shady, albeit financially lucrative, investment companies the Church runs with.

Please allow me to point out that you may have missed the simple argument I offered in response to your question of does anyone believe they couldn't change investments. Let me apply it more specifically for you, in a way that perhaps illustrates why I believe your question to be flawed. Why would the church change their investments(which costs money), when they're doing nothing illegal, AND making money hand over fist? Of course they could, but those companies could blow up and release a Balrog from the planets core. But why would they? What's their incentive to change? There isn't one. Not until the people of the church call on them to support their stated values, which does not headline financial gain.
Click to expand...
Someone posted an article that claimed the LDS Church's stance against legalized marijuana is all about the money because they have some cash invested in pharmaceuticals. I pointed out why I thought that logic was probably incorrect. Then you came in and called my argument dumb before "totally agree"ing with it. When I pointed out the inconsistency in your statement you went on a nonsensical rant assigning positions to me that I have not taken, and accusing me of living under a rock for taking the positions that you simply dreamed up for me. Logic is not your strong suit. G'bye.
 
Also incorrect. I pointed out how your argument that "the could" can't hold it's salt, and/or wouldn't make sense at the current time with the current data. I'm not sure how I "totally agree with you", as that would imply that I, too, would want to push argument and outlet that doesn't make sense, and I would like to waste everyone's time bringing it up.

I have plenty more entertaining ways to waste other people's time.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Let me get this straight: You believe the LDS church is against this because it has a monied interest in keeping, what, up to maybe 20,000 or 30,000 additional people in Utah from using medical marijuana because it will adversely affect a portion of the business of a portion of the businesses in their $32 billion dollar portfolio?

Definitely onto something here. Quick, somebody call Mueller.
Click to expand...

No, their securities do make them hypocritical on this issue. It’s part of the equation.

Their history of controlling the alcohol market through legislation is far more prescient of what they are likely after.
 
Harambe said:
Also incorrect. I pointed out how your argument that "the could" can't hold it's salt, and/or wouldn't make sense at the current time with the current data. I'm not sure how I "totally agree with you", as that would imply that I, too, would want to push argument and outlet that doesn't make sense, and I would like to waste everyone's time bringing it up.

I have plenty more entertaining ways to waste other people's time.
Click to expand...
The one thing this exchange has proven to me is that it's silly to expect a gorilla to speak comprehensible English.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Someone posted an article that claimed the LDS Church's stance against legalized marijuana is all about the money because they have some cash invested in pharmaceuticals. I pointed out why I thought that logic was probably incorrect. Then you came in and called my argument dumb before "totally agree"ing with it. When I pointed out the inconsistency in your statement you went on a nonsensical rant assigning positions to me that I have not taken, and accusing me of living under a rock for taking the positions that you simply dreamed up for me. Logic is not your strong suit. G'bye.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's most likely nothing to do with their investments. It probably has something to do with them believing it's still 1950, because their heads are stuck so far up their asses, they haven't noticed the last 60+ years going by.
 
freakazoid said:
You're right, it's most likely nothing to do with their investments. It probably has something to do with them believing it's still 1950, because their heads are stuck so far up their asses, they haven't noticed the last 60+ years going by.
Click to expand...
This is a far better theory than the one that article was based on. Well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top