Mormon Discussion’s podcast production is certainly not connected to The Mormon Church aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also is most assuredly not approved or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s awesome podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. Under the “fair use” defense, however, another author may make limited use of the original author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.
The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
- Criticism and commentary: for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column, for example, as part of an examination of the book.
- News reporting: such as summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech’s text without the politician’s permission.
- Research and scholarship: perhaps quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.
- Nonprofit educational uses: for example, when teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan.
- Parody: that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star’s speech in order to make fun of that star.
I like leaving my feedback here.
It’s interesting how in life we can easily perceive ourselves being the blind man victimized by the judgement of others. The story is a bit too short and doesn’t go into the various permutations or combinations possible.
While it’s easy to see how others might be quick to cast judgement in the hopes to curve, shape, and modify behavior “Why did you eat the poisoned sandwich you “Idiot”? The example of the story is a relatively bad one (with all due respect to your Dad) because it ins’t 100% illustrative to how real life works… although it would certainly apply to certain scenarios.
The answers to the one observing the scenario practically mislead the obvious intent of the person answering the question. Granted there might be some scenarios where incomplete answers may be given.
I have a daughter struggling through depression, whenever things don’t go her way a suicide tantrum ensues. This is extremely hurtful as parents as we can no longer provide discipline or corrective feedback least the “Idiot” actually goes and carries out the threat to kill oneself. Please note my daughter is extremely intelligent, yet her depression can temporarily render her with the emotional intelligence of that of an “Idiot”.
I may sound harsh when attributing her idiocy, it’s true that she can’t see the world, herself, and her options clearly when the depressed state is triggered. But just like the blind man eating a poison sandwich doesn’t know any better in which he continually gets sick or even dies those of who know which options are poison can also not be held responsible for being continually present for the individual to ensure proper choices are made.
I suppose we are to just let people get sick or even die. When possible, we should avoid people killing themselves and help them get better through their illness, but this can overburden the otherwise healthy individual. After children are legally adults, continually helping them to avoid harmful choices is too exhausting.
The whole scenario sounds way too dramatic, and for my daughter’s case I hope her mental health reaches a point where she no longer requires of our assistance. Even though, those of us with relatively good mental health can at times make wrong choices and the last thing we need is someone chastising ourselves or calling ourselves “idiots”.
Note the word “idiot”, may never be employed but the end result may very well be leaving someone feeling like an idiot by the well intended correcting actions of and by others. Life is to precarious, and perhaps the best thing we can do is to acknowledge that we are just “idiots” doing the best we can.