Very true. My way of thinking cannot rationally be pigeon-holed to fit Beastie's (or your) binary and absolutist mindset. I tend to think outside that kind of narrow and closed-minded box. But, this doesn't mean I don't love Beastie or you as well...I do. ;-)
Beastie wrote:The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.
Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?
So, Wade, your answer to this question is "No."
Therefore, Wade, are you really saying that you feel that it IS beneficial for young boys to have sex with older men?
No, I am not saying that at all. In fact, in my follow-up clarifications I said nearly the opposite (by way of anticipating some people jumping to that false conclusion).
wenglund wrote:Apparently, in your narrow and closed-minded world, if someone doesn't answer your Y/N question with the "yes" that you want, this constitutes "refusing to answer the question"--even though I quite willingly and clearly answered your question "no".
....
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
This reminds me of something ... what could it be ... Oh, I know!
If I pray about something, and don't get the "correct" answer, this constitutes not doing it right - not being worthy enough, not asking correctly, not having the appropriate amount of faith etc.
I know that the analogy is not perfect, but I do think that the "narrow and closed-minded world" description applies very nicely to the LDS view.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Beastie wrote:The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.
Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?
So, Wade, your answer to this question is "No."
Therefore, Wade, are you really saying that you feel that it IS beneficial for young boys to have sex with older men?
No, I am not saying that at all. In fact, in my follow-up clarifications I said nearly the opposite (by way of anticipating some people jumping to that false conclusion).
beastie wrote:The end result is the same, wade. You won't answer the questions, even after it was proven that my representation of NAMBLA's beliefs were accurate. None of the rest of your blather alibi matters.
So, in amazing irony, rather than answer my question, you continue to repeat your same counterfactual mantra--as if in hopes of drowning out what to your mind is unwanted reality. I'll take this as a tacit admission that there is no point in my continued participation in this thread.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Nice!!
Great way of ducking out, Wade, especially since it was beastie who first asked questions that you have conspicuously failed to answer.
What part of my explicit answer "no" to Beastie's first question are you conspicuously failing to see?
How is it that you fail to understand that by me answering "no" to the first question, I cannot logically answer her followup questions since they presuppose a "yes" answer?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Maybe it was just that I could not believe that you really meant to answer "no" to the first NAMBLA question in your first response.
If that is your answer, then I completely withdraw my previous comment.
You didn't duck out at all.
You just astound me.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Beastie wrote:The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.
Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?
So, Wade, your answer to this question is "No."
Therefore, Wade, are you really saying that you feel that it IS beneficial for young boys to have sex with older men?
No, I am not saying that at all. In fact, in my follow-up clarifications I said nearly the opposite (by way of anticipating some people jumping to that false conclusion).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Oops, missed this! Sorry.
So does this mean that your answer to the first NAMBLA question is really "yes" (or that it is "nearly the opposite" of "no").
Yes, yes, I know, the last bit - in parentheses - is not fair, is the result of sloppy thinking, is a straw man, is out of context. I apologise in advance.
I'll look back in the thread for where you made your follow-up clarifications.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Mr. Englund won't give a precise answer because he knows what that ultimately means. Plus, he's bored and likes to stir the pot a bit. I get it. Oh, the Mormon paradigm is his social construct. He's not going to abandon that at his age. Better just to defend it even though he knows it's smarmy.
Beastie wrote:The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.
Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?
Do you concede that intelligent men may actually believe this totally erroneous idea?
OK, Wade....so just to clarify, your answer to the FIRST question is "Yes"....Your answer to the second question is "No", meaning that the men who feel this way are not intelligent.
antishock8 wrote:Mr. Englund won't give a precise answer because he knows what that ultimately means. Plus, he's bored and likes to stir the pot a bit. I get it. Oh, the Mormon paradigm is his social construct. He's not going to abandon that at his age. Better just to defend it even though he knows it's smarmy.
Thanks, -Anti Shock8-
by the way, I don't know if it really bothers Wade (perhaps he's used to it), but it always annoys me to see him referred to as "England". Nice to see that he gets his proper surname sometimes. Of course, this may just be the Scot in me talking.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."