Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_beastie]

I'll bet that "parh" was supposed to say "Pah"---as in "Pahoran." It's obvious that his blood pressure has been spiking dangerously the last few days, hence his insane, rage-fueled posting here. But I've also been told that Pahoran was appointed a moderator over at MDD, which may help to explain why some people have abandoned that board. If I recall correctly, LoaP mentioned in a post that he *used to be* a moderator, but isn't anymore. I wouldn't doubt that he stepped down after Pahoran was appointed.

in my opinion, Pahoran is every bit as much of a liability to the Mopologetic cause as Will was. He needs to be cast out if they're to have any hope of engaging in the sort of "bridge-building" that DCP has mentioned in the past.

Pahoran is a moderator???? Now that is hysterical, in some dark and disturbing way.

[_malaise]

The fact is that Will wanted his arguments to be embraced by the higher-level apologists and their community. Yet he could not handle discourse about his ideas with females without descending into sexualized insults. This isn't "PCness" gone amuck. This is about whether or not Will could handle being a higher-level apologist with the scrutiny of ideas that brings, without descending into behavior that would embarrass the larger apologetic community. And I'm not just talking about defenders of the faith on the internet. I'm talking about the "real life" world of LDS apologia, which does try to have some semblance of respectability and academic behavior.

Of course it is. If it is the case that you need to avoid making sexual comments in your private life to publish a serious book then PC has run amok insofar as public debate is closed to people who are "offensive". As for whether or not his ideas would make their way into real apologetics, I assume that Will would not put sexualize comments into any sort of published apologetic works, and that if he did there are editors who could clean up whatever he was saying. I think that he could "handle" that just fine. The fact is that this thread was created so that the females on this site could claim to be EVER SO OFFENDED and ruin his ability to have his arguments taken seriously.

[_beastie]

Of course it is. If it is the case that you need to avoid making sexual comments in your private life to publish a serious book then PC has run amok insofar as public debate is closed to people who are "offensive". As for whether or not his ideas would make their way into real apologetics, I assume that Will would not put sexualize comments into any sort of published apologetic works, and that if he did there are editors who could clean up whatever he was saying. I think that he could "handle" that just fine. The fact is that this thread was created so that the females on this site could claim to be EVER SO OFFENDED and ruin his ability to have his arguments taken seriously.

Well, of course he wouldn't put sexualized insult in his publications. The danger is that he would make sexualized insults towards females who subsequently challenged his ideas. The question is whether or not the larger apologetic community wants to be associated with that sort of behavior.

by the way, you sound very much like Will and Nomad. "You just don't want to take his argument seriously." What a laugh. There are plenty of apologists who have made serious arguments that have NOT be put under the microscope the way Will has. The reason why is very simple. They don't behave like Will.

[_Jersey Girl]

malaise

Of course it is. If it is the case that you need to avoid making sexual comments in your private life to publish a serious book then PC has run amok insofar as public debate is closed to people who are "offensive".

How does posting sexualized remarks under your real name on this message board equal making sexual comments "in your private life"?

[Guest]

Hello "Ms." Malaise,

Is insinuating a woman is a whore, or that people are participating in an orgiastic circle jerk PC?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Kevin Graham]

Excuse me while I go barf

ROFL!

That's all you got Pahoran? I reposted my refutation of your tripe three times and this is all you can come up with in response?

You are out of your league as usual. Do yourself a favor. Go educate yourself on the matter and then go get some integrity. Maybe then you'll be in a position to offer a decent response in defense of Wilbur. All you're left with now is backtracking and calling your own LDS scholars "useful idiots" simply because they agree with us and do not carry your flag of loyalty, blindly to the brink of sanity. It takes someone with absolute contempt for the truth to do that. You, droopy, wade, and a couple others come to mind. That's something special.

[_Kevin Graham]

Malaise, I suggest you take your ridiculous gripes to the Neal A. Maxwell Institute and see if you can convince them of your recreation of recent history. Stop complaining to us about this. If Will didn't nothing wrong to warrant being thrown off their publication schedule, then why did they do it?

They have every right to publish or to refuse to publish someone based on behavior elsewhere. NAMI is a Church owned organization, after all, so we should expect higher standards. The risk for them simply isn't worth whatever perceived benefits that might come from Will's publication. Why the hell would they want to associate themselves with such a creepy person anyway? Why the hell would they want to publish him in their academic wing, when the guy has absolutely no credentials as an academic, a scholar, or even a talented amateur. Will brings nothing to the table for them. Nothing. His silly arguments have been shot down already, so stop pretending the apostates conspired against him because they couldn't handle his arguments. In fact, it is Will who refuses to debate his arguments anywhere. Trying to get Will to debate points about his KEP arguments is pointless, because he simply refuses to do so. He is not only a despicable person in general, but he is also a coward.

[_harmony]

Of course it is. If it is the case that you need to avoid making sexual comments in your private life to publish a serious book then PC has run amok insofar as public debate is closed to people who are "offensive". As for whether or not his ideas would make their way into real apologetics, I assume that Will would not put sexualize comments into any sort of published apologetic works, and that if he did there are editors who could clean up whatever he was saying. I think that he could "handle" that just fine. The fact is that this thread was created so that the females on this site could claim to be EVER SO OFFENDED and ruin his ability to have his arguments taken seriously.

1. This board is not Will's "private life". This is a public forum, open to anyone with internet access.

2. This thread was not created so females on this site could claim to be "ever so offended" or to ruin Will's ability to have his arguments "taken seriously". This thread was created to show Will's words in one easily accessed thread, so in the future, when Will again denies his words, we can refer to them in one step. Our claim to being "ever so offended" took place long ago, and is also documented.

3. Will has already put "sexualized comments" into his published words. This forum is considered "published", and if you don't believe that, I suggest NAMI does... and so would the Trib and the DN, should NAMI ever actually print something Will wrote.

4. Will has made a contribution to LDS apologetics in the real world. He presented at the FAIR conference last fall. His arguments have nothing to do with his over-the-top behavior here. He refuses to defend his argument here, so it's not like the posters here haven't tried to engage his argument.

5. Current events in California regarding Arnold's offensive behavior spotlight the current acceptability within society of those who walk outside sexual mores. While I wish NAMI had published Will (simply because I think the blowback from the media would be HUGE, once this thread was delivered at approximately the same time as Will's book was delivered to market), I completely understand their reluctance, due to the current media circus. No one, especially no one who was associated with the LDS church, wants to look foolish to the public, and Will's sexualized behavior here would be media fodder for weeks (as long as there wasn't another war or MMM to push him and NAMI off the front page).

[_Tator]

Ask yourself that:

Your message is fine. It's worth discussing, but you're leaving out the FACT that woman are straight BITCHES toward people. f*****g BITCHES. But their worst vitirol is reserved for each other. They are unbelieveable toward one another. A level of toxicity I've never seen men get to. f***, if men get to just 50% of the s*** women talk about each other someone is getting shot or beat to death. I've been on both sides of their b***s***, and if you've ever worked or interacted with them on an extended basis the pedestal we men tend to put them on is destroyed by them.

If the women of this board don't want to post here because they're being little drama llamas, or playing the victim card... Whatever. That's on them. They'll just find some other avenue to vent their s***. If they want to stick to the issues, and address the issues... Then fine. Do it. They reap what they sow, too. If they can't see that, and want to, yet again, not take responsibility for their own actions then that's that. It's typical. The women who stick around have my respect, but it's the same kind of respect I would give anyone who sticks around. It take strength to stay on a board that has minimal moderation. Apparently, there are quite a few that lack that kind of courage.

Oh, my! What a dumb c***!

Simon, I find the posts vulgar.

In fairness, I am sure that the MI will not be publishing anything they write either.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Tator,

I agree. The posts are vulgar. What do you think of my explanation and apology? Would that have any bearing on the way you regard my contributions to this forum?

V/R
Dr. Cam, NC