DiscussMormonism.com

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:48 pm

Man, the more I think about it I’m realizing that it is the religionists and those that have a more traditional/conservative worldview that should worry.

We’re up against some whacko folks out there.

As we’ve seen in recent years they will stop at NOTHING to achieve their ends.

This thread has been a manifestation of that. It’s been an eye opener. Even more so than other threads I’ve participated on.

Liberal/leftest secular society is not one that I would want my children and grandchildren to live in.

Imagine, Brett Kavanaugh hearings with our names (conservatives and religionists that support traditional values) inserted into the docket schedule, large scale and small scale, federal and state. False witness and false witnesses. No thanks.

I’m speaking figuratively for those that are taking me literally.

That’s not a world I would want to live in. It’s worth fighting the good fight to oppose it.

But without bigotry. It can be done in love while at the same time not putting up with the shenanigans we’ve seen from the liberal/leftist secularists.

Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.

As can be seen on this particular thread there is very little room for compromise from those that run in opposition.

Which is too bad. That will/does just make things harder. But that’s life.

Traditional family values. Religiosity. These two things are enemies of the far liberal/left.

So there you have it.

I’m a marked man. My days/posts are numbered.

Regards,
MG

You COULD take a stab at defining civil society before you go.

Morley wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:44 pm

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:01 pm

MG,

You claim to believe in the seperation of church from state. That would make you a secularist.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:22 pm

You sure like to convolute things into a rhetorical and definitive mess.

That’s what you do. Pretty good at it I don’t hesitate to say.

Honor, when you ask whether MG agrees with the dictionary definition of a word, you are convoluting things into a rhetorical and definitive mess.

Yes, the Mormon who goes by the moniker Mental Gymnast hates rhetorical and ‘definitive’ <- wtf? messes.



What a dummy.

- Doc

First, they came using dictionaries...

The opening stanza, of Pastor Wissen Fürchten's biopic poem, penned April 7, 1928, in Worte Sind Erschreckend, Germany.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:43 pm

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:40 pm

Alpine School District in Utah Valley.

https://www.kuer.org/education/2022-11- ... l-district

A comment from the article:


This is a possible solution I guess. Let parents be the gate keepers of their OWN children,

The problem is, there are those that want to force the content of these books on children and/or put the books right in front of their face/eyeballs.

Parents should be in charge. If Kishkumen or anyone else here wants their children to read the books in question, that many other parents are opposed to having in the school, take your child to the library and have at it.

Solution?

This is just one area where liberal leftists and conservatives are going to disagree. And again, this is pretty much the point, after all is said and done, of this thread. Do we want a world with or without compromise?

And how does that happen if one side or the other ridicules ‘the other’ for whatever reason?

Parents taking their own children to the public library would be a solution.

Open to compromise on this particular issue?

Regards,
MG

First of all, did you read the article you linked to?

You excerpted a comment, but completely changed its meaning in so doing. Here's the rest of that execrable comment:

“It doesn’t matter if there’s a cure for cancer in there, it’s inappropriate for children,” he said. “If you want your kids to read that stuff, you can go to the local library and check those books out.”

Right. What a compromise. Here's a quote that's more informative:

...Alpine School District policies state that an “instructional material review committee” has to have at least one school administrator and two teachers appointed by the school’s principal. There also must be more parents on the committee than school employees. But Rekdal said review committees should primarily be made up of professional educators who received training in First Amendment rights.

“I think right now because they [the committees] are composed mostly of non-professionals who are very impassioned and who have not received this training, people are going to make decisions based on emotions and their ideas about their children and what they want them to read,” Rekdal said.

The article you Googled for and quickly cherry-picked a sentence from in no way supports your point.

I read the article. There were various opinions expressed. I linked to it so that others could see that this was the case. The one sentence I extracted and posted was done so to pose a question. An interesting one at that. One that might cause a bit of consternation among those that want put questionable material/books into school libraries.

Now you’re faulting me for posting information that supports more than one viewpoint and calling me on it? That’s what is so crazy around here. You and others will fault me for my post just made before this one as showing an example of hatred and/or bigotry. Because it puts you folks in the crosshairs (watch out Sarah Palin!) and makes you uncomfortable.

But that’s not my intent. It’s done to simply wake us all up and realize that yes, we are all human but we have very divergent views on what constitutes reality and the ‘good life’. Neither worldview should be cancelled out but should be put out there for everyone to see and then choose what works best for them.

If in the meantime one side or another posts something that can be found to be in error, so be it. At least in my case I'm willing to be called on something and then move on.

But not cancelled.

No siree Bob.

Regards,
MG

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:27 pm

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:04 pm

Can you point out the other ‘straws’ in this thread where I said something to malkie that would have warranted his making ‘hay’ over something I said to him? You’ve got to have a lot of straw to make hay.

Regards,
MG

Nope. Malkie's words themselves are pretty clear. If they want to point out other examples, they are free to do.

Nitpick - as far as I know, it doesn't matter how much straw you have, you can't make hay with it.

That said - nahhhh - I'm just fed up. Can't be bothered any more with certain posters. Not just this thread.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:07 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:43 pm

First of all, did you read the article you linked to?

You excerpted a comment, but completely changed its meaning in so doing. Here's the rest of that execrable comment:
Right. What a compromise. Here's a quote that's more informative:


The article you Googled for and quickly cherry-picked a sentence from in no way supports your point.

I read the article. There were various opinions expressed. I linked to it so that others could see that this was the case. The one sentence I extracted and posted was done so to pose a question. An interesting one at that. One that might cause a bit of consternation among those that want put questionable material/books into school libraries.

No it wasn't. It was included in the article to show how unhinged some people can be.

Now you’re faulting me for posting information that supports more than one viewpoint and calling me on it? That’s what is so crazy around here. You and others will fault me for my post just made before this one as showing an example of hatred and/or bigotry. Because it puts you folks in the crosshairs (watch out Sarah Palin!) and makes you uncomfortable.

More grandstanding. No, you did not post "information that supports more than one viewpoint," you just cherry picked some idiot. Even your article knew it was quoting an idiot. That's why it was included.

But that’s not my intent. It’s done to simply wake us all up and realize that yes, we are all human but we have very divergent views on what constitutes reality and the ‘good life’. Neither worldview should be cancelled out but should be put out there for everyone to see and then choose what works best for them.

Sure. That's your goal.

If in the meantime one side or another posts something that can be found to be in error, so be it. At least in my case I'm willing to be called on something and then move on.

But not cancelled.

No siree Bob.

You are really pulling out all the stops now, you drama queen, you! Go, DARVO, go!!

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:51 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:25 pm

Your invocation of "Secularism" is simply as way of trying to justify yourself and others that your bigotry is okay.

I suppose we ought to take a moment and look at the dictionary definition of bigotry.

*stubborn or intolerant adherence to one's opinions or prejudices

If there is anyone that is demonstrating intolerance towards another’s beliefs while at the same time also demonstrating little or no understanding of the ‘other’, that would be you, sir. Your stubborn adherence to what appears to be an issue with the word ‘secular’ and its application is mind boggling. Your blind knuckleheadness and stubborn behavior in creating a caricature of another person whom you don’t even know but have reason to disparage is readily evident.

At least to one poster.

And as I’ve said, I’m sure you have your reasons.

Civility not being one of them. That is, in my estimation/opinion anyway.

I’m sorry that you have felt the need to get all worked up in regards to making a HUGE issue over definitions and applications. I’ve even tried my best to adjust to your concerns, but to little or no avail.

I’m willing to and have already demonstrated that I am willing to accept your general categorical definition of secularist as being one who has an absence of belief in God.

Why is this not good enough for you?

I’d like to make some kind of amends that will meet your satisfaction but you’re making it very difficult.

Regards,
MaG

Dude, “secularist” is your term, not mine. You agreed that it means nothing other than “people that don’t believe in God.” So, just say what you mean: people who don’t believe in God are an existential threat to civil society, promote putting pornography in school libraries, have poor reasoning skills, and all the other derogatory things you’ve said or implied about people who don’t believe in God.

“Secularism” is a phony philosophy that you just made up. People who don’t believe in God have no common philosophy. They just don’t believe in the existence of something you believe in. “Secularism” Is something that you made up to hide behind and deny the bigoted statements you make about non believers.

It’s clear that you aren’t even making a minimal amount of effort to understand what I’ve been saying for pages now. It’s not my word. It’s not my definition. All you did was simply admit what has been obvious from the start: when you say “secularist” you mean “person who doesn’t believe in God.”

And, because “secularism” Is just a phony label, it’s only function is to let you make clearly bigoted statements and then try to weasel your way out by saying things like “Oh, I was only talking about a philosophy [that I totally made up based on my own personal biases against nonbelievers]”

I’m not asking you for amends. I’m not asking for an apology. I’m not even asking you to stop making bigoted statements. I’m not asking for anything at all. You get to make bigoted statements here. I get to call them out.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:48 pm

Man, the more I think about it I’m realizing that it is the religionists and those that have a more traditional/conservative worldview that should worry.

We’re up against some whacko folks out there.

As we’ve seen in recent years they will stop at NOTHING to achieve their ends.

This thread has been a manifestation of that. It’s been an eye opener. Even more so than other threads I’ve participated on.

Liberal/leftest secular society is not one that I would want my children and grandchildren to live in.

Imagine, Brett Kavanaugh hearings with our names (conservatives and religionists that support traditional values) inserted into the docket schedule, large scale and small scale, federal and state. False witness and false witnesses. No thanks.

I’m speaking figuratively for those that are taking me literally.

That’s not a world I would want to live in. It’s worth fighting the good fight to oppose it.

But without bigotry. It can be done in love while at the same time not putting up with the shenanigans we’ve seen from the liberal/leftist secularists.

Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.

As can be seen on this particular thread there is very little room for compromise from those that run in opposition.

Which is too bad. That will/does just make things harder. But that’s life.

Traditional family values. Religiosity. These two things are enemies of the far liberal/left.

So there you have it.

I’m a marked man. My days/posts are numbered.

Regards,
MG

Bravo. Full on DARVO and stuck the landing.

Pro tip: Making more extreme bigoted statements does not change the nature of your statements.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:56 pm

You COULD take a stab at defining civil society before you go.

Here is one from an online dictionary:

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society.

I would just add to that, anything and everything that makes a democracy work without anarchy being the result. People getting along, following the laws, self control, treating each other humanely, etc.

As far as attributes of those that live in a civil society we might list those that one of our founding fathers came up with:

Below are Benjamin Franklin’s 13 virtues and precepts, taken from his autobiography:

Eat not to dullness. Drink not to elevation.
Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversations.
Let all your things have their places.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.
Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, i.e. waste nothing.
Lose no time. Be always employ’d in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.
Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
Avoid extremes. Forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
Tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes or habitation.
Be not disturbed at trifles or accidents, common or unavoidable.
Rarely use venery but for health or offspring.
Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

I would imagine others might add to that.

Regards,
MG

Maybe, just maybe, the whacko is the guy who confuses having his words criticized on a message board with the Nuremberg trials.

Just saying.