stemelbow wrote:Darth J wrote:Of course it seems that way to you. That's because all of this is in the context of a message board about Mormonism, and the LDS Church has conditioned you to assess the truth value of a given proposition or argument in terms of your emotions.
That's not true at all. You have again attempted to discuss me when you fail to understand what you are talking about, DJ. Ah well.
Yeah, I just don't know anything about Moroni's promise or LDS dogma about spiritual epistemology. I just woke up one day and found myself on this board, with a tabula rasa as to what the LDS Church teaches. My completely blank slate was filled in by anti-Mormons and critics, as I have no personal experience with how faithful Mormons are supposed to determine whether something is true.
Your visceral reaction to "an attack on the Church" distracted you from the actual point, which is that criticism of a "pseudonym" is obviously criticism of who is using the pseudonym. It isn't a "comparison;" it is illustrating the double standard, that being the calling card of Simon Belmont's sense of morality.
You missed my point then. Your attack on the Church was not my only point. You see, the pseudonym of the Church, as you call it, is clearly representative of the Corp. The pseudonym of Scratch represents some unknown guy that no one on these boards knows, it seems. That's quite a difference that you seemed to have missed in your attack on the Church.
Tell you what you do, Stemelbow.
Explain why you can sue people for unlawful acts even though you don't know the actual identity of the defendant(s). E.g.,
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Then, when you have finished explaining to me how I yet again have no idea what I am talking about, you can further enlighten the world as to this deep philosophical principle that you can sue anonymous people in the real world when their wrongful actions are known even if their identities have not yet been discovered, but there is some overarching ontological principle by which you aren't really criticizing a person saying things you don't like on a message board simply on the basis that you don't know that person's real name.
And then, you can explain how the Federalist and anti-Federalist debates were even possible prior to the ratification of the Constitution, seeing as how the authors of
The Federalist were using pseudonyms.
Because, you know, all of this is just over my head, and it must be my rabid anti-Mormonism or something, not a critique of a specious argument offered in response to the OP.
Your being spoon fed by the Church the idea that good feelings are indicative of truth value is a large part of why you cannot distinguish between facts and value judgments or between evidence and dogma. It's why you so often characterize evidence-based argument as "whimperin' and whinin'," and why you assume that people who are not dazzled by the puerile reasoning so often seen in defense of the faith must be "angry." You impute reaching conclusions based on emotion to other people because you simply have no frame of reference otherwise. And you are utterly incapable of self-reflection about this, no more than a fish is capable of introspection about the water in which it swims.
Do you notice how often you comment on me in your responses rather than sticking to the discussion at hand? Sadly the reason for that is deeper than just some passing hostility towards me, I fear. As it is, you don't even know me but you feel so obliged to discuss me, and why you don't like me or why I"m bad, in nearly every response yo offer me. Its really weird behavior, DJ. I'm sorry you think its cool and appropriate. It looks like you've been trained and spoon fed appropriately though.
So, how many threads have you started about yourself, again?
And who is it that you are suggesting would have trained and spoon fed me? Besides Satan (a.k.a., Mormonism's Monster Under Your Bed), I mean?
I am sure, however, that your consistently demonstrated inability to understand, articulate, or address "the issue at hand" at any given time leads you by process of elimination that it is all about "hostility." But then, how could I possibly be hostile to you, since you can't be personal about someone who uses a pseudonym?
I have a great idea, though! Maybe, just maybe, you could say something other than "Nuh uh!" and "Darth J hurts my feelings!" regarding what I said about the faulty reasoning Simon Belmont presented. That way you can really show that it is me, not you, who can't "stick to the topic at hand."