Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Imma just tuck this one in right here...
Critics Steps to Confuse and Befuddle an Opponent through Dubiousness and Spuriousness
1) Demand an elaborate, time-consuming comparison between your position and theirs while offering up minimal responses that don't acknowledge points raised.
2) Insist that your opponent provide incontrovertible proof, and anything short of a recorded and signed confession won't be accepted as plausible. Recorded confessions will be assumed to be a deep fake and signed confessions are forgeries.
3) Dismiss their narrative as rubbish immediately (or hair fire or tin foil conspiracy, etc). Do not even read it. Once your opponent goes through the bother to research, gather, collate, compose and write their narrative your job is to discredit it. Make it obvious you tossed their labor-intensive narrative aside like garbage. This will have the effect of demoralizing the target poster. It will make them unwilling to expend the effort again, which is a net win. The sooner you can move the discussion into quips and cliches the better it is for your side.
4) As mentioned above it's extremely important to cherry pick their arguments. Just because they make a good point doesn't mean that you have to respond to it.
5) Quote them and then misrepresent what they said.
6) Attack the source because that's easier than addressing content. I like to call this one 'ad sourcenum'.
7) Confuse your opponent with questions, always questions. The questions need not be relevant. The goal is to get your opponent off their game, and preventing your opponent from making their point. Think Endless Recursion through Irrelevant Questions. Also, do not respond to their leading questions.
8) Just blurt out something, anything, instead of letting points go unchallenged. That, in of itself is a rebuttal and works like a charm. Posting for the sake of posting is as good as posting a well-thought point.
9) Deceive your opponent by identifying yourself as a member of their group, or as a moderate, centrist, independent, or act as though you used to be part of their group but then saw the error of your ways. <- The last one is the Born Again tactic. Or just stay on the low down. Works either way, no?
10) Insert our catch phrases into your posts. Stick with it and our talking points will become truth. If they debunk your talking point, ignore it, and move on because what's important is noise, not content.
11) There's this thing called 'sliding', and you see DCP do it a lot (and they also talk about it a lot on /pol/). LDSFAQs would do this quite a bit. If you want to hide something instead of addressing it, sliding a post is a great way to bury anything that you don't want to be seen. Simply create more posts above the conversation that you want to hide. The posts that you make will push the targeted posts further down, reducing the visibility of the objectionable material.
Any combination of these tactics are in use any given moment by bad actors. Anyway. I just want the audience to see what I see and note their ____ when they're doing it.
"keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land." This is common vernacular of Joseph's day. I could go on for the rest of alma 36 but this should be sufficient for now.
I will add that this vernacular is found in Deuteronomy 4:40.
"keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land."
I will add that this vernacular is found in Deuteronomy 4:40.
40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever.
I will add that this vernacular is found in Deuteronomy 4:40.
40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever.
Regards, MG
So? Explain how "keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land." is not part of the vernacular of Joseph's day?
Themis wrote: So? Explain how "keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land." is not part of the vernacular of Joseph's day?
Show that it was.
Regards, MG
We can keep going back and forth on this. I've enjoyed reading the substantive comments made by a few. For me, chiasmus and word print studies have been interesting to look at over the years. I've come to some of my own conclusions as have others. Are chiasmus and word print studies at the very core of my 'testimony' of the Book of Mormon? No.
But I find these two topics VERY interesting, nonetheless.
I've got to move on at this point. Enough time. Enough said for now.
Themis wrote: So? Explain how "keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land." is not part of the vernacular of Joseph's day?
Show that it was.
Regards, MG
mentalgymnast wrote:We can keep going back and forth on this. I've enjoyed reading the substantive comments made by a few. For me, chiasmus and word print studies have been interesting to look at over the years. I've come to some of my own conclusions as have others. Are chiasmus and word print studies at the very core of my 'testimony' of the Book of Mormon? No.
But I find these two topics VERY interesting, nonetheless.
I've got to move on at this point. Enough time. Enough said for now.
Regards, MG
Posted by Mentalgymnast in a different thread:
mentalgymnast wrote: We can keep going back and forth on this. I've enjoyed reading the substantive comments made by a few. For me, chiasmus and word print studies have been interesting to look at over the years. I've come to some of my own conclusions as have others. Are chiasmus and word print studies at the very core of my 'testimony' of the Book of Mormon? No.
But I find these two topics VERY interesting, nonetheless.
I've got to move on at this point. Enough time. Enough said for now.
Regards, MG
Today’s contrarian trolling session is now (hopefully!) concluded.
