I'm banned from MADB/FAIR?

[_Dr. Shades]

You made the mistake of posting here. The MA&D moderators saw your name on this board and banned you as punishment.

[_harmony]

Actually, I don't think they ever were going to allow you to post again, even if you hadn't posted here. You aren't exaclty "their kind", ya know.

[_Runtu]

Actually, I don't think they ever were going to allow you to post again, even if you hadn't posted here. You aren't exaclty "their kind", ya know.

Who is their kind? Juliann? Pahoran? Selek? Hammer? I don't really know.

[_harmony]

Actually, I don't think they ever were going to allow you to post again, even if you hadn't posted here. You aren't exaclty "their kind", ya know.

Who is their kind? Juliann? Pahoran? Selek? Hammer? I don't really know.

I'd say the answer to that is obvious. Indeed, those you just named are exactly their kind. And EA is most assuredly not.

[_Runtu]

Actually, I don't think they ever were going to allow you to post again, even if you hadn't posted here. You aren't exaclty "their kind", ya know.

Who is their kind? Juliann? Pahoran? Selek? Hammer? I don't really know.

I'd say the answer to that is obvious. Indeed, those you just named are exactly their kind. And EA is most assuredly not.

Yeah, it was kind of a rhetorical question. Every day I wonder if this is the day I'll be banned over there. :)

[_msnobody]

If I'm perma-saved, you can certainly be perma-banned. I asked someone who used to post on Z what ever happened to you, so it's good to see you're still around.

[_John Larsen]

I had a church related 2 year suspension once.

[_Moniker]

EAllusion (and anyone else that was banned), what were you banned for?

Are there still a lot of critics left over there?

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion (and anyone else that was banned), what were you banned for?

Are there still a lot of critics left over there?

In reality, I was suspended for being an intelligent critic who frequently and unapologetically confronted Juliann, DCP, and the like. I was always skating on thin ice, but I had some cache built up from my reputation on ZLMB. I didn't play the game to the extent Gad did to avoid problems. FAIR wasn't quite as Orwellian back then, but it was well on its way down that path. My specific suspension was handed down when I wrote a post, preemptively anticipated an ill-considered reply (as is my wont), wrote it down, called myself a jackass for saying it, then refuted it. If I'm not mistaken, the specific kind of argument I preemptively refuted was written precisely because there were several posters who had a habit thinking like that. Juliann would be one of them.

You can read my posts here:

LINK

My specific post that did me in was here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... ntry365013

Someone wrote:

In any case, I tend to dislike the whole concept we have invented of
``evil.'' We speak of it as if it were some sort of physical substance
floating around as a component of the universe. It is simply a label
that we tend to put on things that we judge to be detrimental to our
intentional pursuits, whatever they may be.

Mike

I responded:

You don't need to get hung up on the word "evil" per se. The problem is typically expressed in terms of suffering. You can state a version of it simply like this:

If there was a very powerful, very knowledgeable, good being out there like God is described as with the capacity to prevent pointless suffering, it would. Yet, there is an awful lot of inscrutable suffering out there. If there was such a being, it is likely some of this would be prevented, ergo it is less probable there is such a being. This version of the problem is called an evidential argument from evil.

Theodicies attempt to give a point to seemingly pointless suffering. Defenses don't argue for a specific point, but try to kill the viablity of the inference. As the Officer's parable tries to gets at, those responses tend to be weak.Almost all people including theologians accept that benevolence entails the prevention of pointless suffering. The dispute is over whether we are able to judge someone's suffering (likely) lacking a good point.

I then quoted myself and wrote:

But EA! That's argument ad populum!

No it's not, you ignorant jackass.

It's simply pointing out that most people accept that part of what it means to be a good person entails preventing the suffering of others when there is no risk or cost to yourself unless that suffering is justified by achieving some greater good. It's part of the content of the term "benevolent," if that word has any meaning at all. Bringing it up is to communicate this is an uncontraversional premise in the argument. If anyone actually wanted to dispute that point, it would then be possible to go about discussing why people, including the majority of theologians dealing with the problem, don't dispute it.

Moderator: Your account is suspended.

I guess it is worth noting that this was right after I beat up Juliann and a few favorite dumb arguments of hers here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... ntry364232

And here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... ntry364226

(Heh. Does Juliann still think that because sociologists of religion assume people are rational in their religious decisions, referring to what is called 'rational choice theory' in sociology, that means all religious choices are rational meaning reasonable/epistemically permissable? She never quite got what is meant by rational in the former and latter senses. As the wiki link warns about, she confused what is meant by rational in that sense with more colloquial and philosophical uses of the term.)

[_Moniker]

Oh, you dinged 'em pretty good!

Well, that's actually a shame that so many intelligent critics are banned. What is the point of apologetics if there is not a critic? Surely the critics that they dealt with on ZLMB and later on FAIR allowed them to come up with counter arguments and attempt to bolster believers confidence. The critics merely helped them hone their skills -- they should have been thankful for that.

When I first starting posting on FAIR there were few critics and I saw many threads that were created to Twitter at other Christian denominations, atheists, and to pat each other on the back. Not all of the posters were so rabid -- but the few that were really stood out for me. The best apologetics move they could possibly make is to steer the ones that call everyone Satanic (I'm of Satan apparently) and other nonsense away from their board. It was certainly helpful for what I was looking for -- I'm not a critic -- yet it actually probably does them more harm in PR because they didn't have the critics to keep them busy. When they are left to muse on their own at how uber special they are while demeaning others (mocking descendants of MMM) it appears (to an outsider) as if the LDS are being represented by a bunch of hateful, intolerant posters.

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post the links and quotes.