LifeOnaPlate wrote:CK, are you implying this threads purpose is not to simply trashtalk DCP?
CK was simply bringing Daniel's latest piece of nonsense here for those of us who cannot access MAD to read for ourselves. No sense in leaving us out of the fun, is there?
He can do what he wants, but it seemed for a moment he was denying any trash talk. But if he acknowledges it for what it is, carry on.
You use a great many pronouns, which can easily lead to confusion.
He who? it what? he who? Daniel? CK? it what? what is it? who is he?
In thinking about DCP and his posts on MAD, I suggest you try a tool commonly used by historians in reading texts. Ask:
- who is this text addressing?
- what is the writer trying to achieve by addressing his audience in the way he does?
On MAD, the answer to the first question is (most of the time I think) "his fellow LDS".
The answer to the second question is that in the first instance he is trying to reassure them that the objections, questions and counter-evidence that might disturb them are as mere straws to be puffed away by the breath of such a mighty Mormon intellectual as he is. Hence his deliberate cultivation of a one-liner dismissive style: "historically illiterate ... repulsive ... preposterous ... I was in Tasmania/Estonia/Nicaragua last week, and I KNOW." One dismisses; one mocks; one invokes one's amazingly exalted status as tenured academic at an actual university, and the author of a REAL BOOK on a non-Mormon topic that is actually in print (Amazon sales rank currently 1,005,288). For most of the time that is enough. When DCP posts, the dismissing has been done.
If anyone takes him up on his posts in the above style, the purpose of the text changes to damage limitation. He MUST post in a mode that makes it seem as if he regards his interlocutor as a fool or a knave - the hope here is that LDS will assume that because the great DCP writes AS IF that was the case, it must be so, even if they can't follow the argument. And he must never concede a point of any kind, which leads him into all kinds of diversionary tactics to move attention away from the often rather overconfident and unqualified statements he makes in his OP. People here often refer to DCP being 'cruel', or 'malicious' to opponents. I would not use those words: rather, the experience of those attempting to argue with him is one of boredom, frustration at his slipperiness and lack of intellectual honesty, and the sense that one is taking part in something vaguely degrading. And underneath one feels a bit bad at the fact that one is attacking someone who must be continually in pain about the vulnerability of his most cherished beliefs, unless, that is, he is further into self-deception than anyone should ever go. Shouldn't one just leave him alone in his cage and stop rattling the bars?
cksalmon wrote:Ah, man. Talk about misplaced guilt. You're only my favorite LDS poster of all time!
You really should get out more often.
Now, I feel like I should delete the thread.
Punk.
Chris
No, I think the thread is good, and if these feelings of deletion persist, I might have to cyber-flog you. in my opinion, this gives Dr. Peterson the opportunity to offer an apology for his statements towards your belief system (if they were said in anger or retribution... which I tend to think they were [but I may be wrong]), or if the statement truly reflects his overall opinion, it gives him the opportunity to explain how exactly he defines "respect."
And yes, I am a punk… that is one of the few things that transcends religious divides.
PS.
I still need to know where to send the book. If you don’t want it (or feel weir accepting such a gift), let me know and I’ll give it to some LDS hombre that will use it for evil.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
As a sidenote, Dr. Marcus Martins in his book (at least the one I bought over the weekend… don’t know if he has more) on blacks and the priesthood refers to the priesthood ban as the “so-called priesthood ban.”
Oh dear!! Honestly, I don't get that at all. I know DCP hotly claimed that "so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre" only meant that it is normally called such, but frankly, that makes no sense at all.
So why would someone call it the "so-called" ban? It was obviously a ban.
I think that "so-called" in this instance definitely means "normally called such" or "commonly referred to as." Here are the pertinent passages. This is from Martins, Marcus H. Ph.D, Setting the Record Straight; Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood, (Mellenial Press, Inc., Orem, UT, 2007) – Bibliography people can slap me if they want as I’ve never been very good at citing stuff without my style guide handy (which I don’t have here).
"One of the most controversial and discussed topics in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the so-called priesthood ban, or the practice prior to 1978 of denying ordination to the Church’s priesthood to male members with Black African ancestry. After polygamy this is probably the second most-discussed controversy among both believers and critics of the Church." (pg 1)
Later he says: “…just like the Mountain Meadows massacre and other unfortunate episodes, the ban may be remembered as an undeniable fact in history…” (pg 4)
His comparing it to the MMM, and stating it is an "undeniable fact in history" should show that his use of "so-called" isn't to downplay nor deny it's existence.
Who is Dr. Martins?
He was “the first member of [his] race… to serve as a full-time missionary after the revelation…” (pg 1), “… among the first to be ordained a high priest in 1981…” (pg 2), and “…quite possibly – at least outside of Africa – among the first to be ordained a bishop in 1987.” (pg 2). He also was “the first of [his] raced to work as a religion professor in the Church’s universities…”
According to pg 87, he has a “master’s degree in organizational behavior and a Ph.D. in sociology of religion, race, and ethnic relations."
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
As a sidenote, Dr. Marcus Martins in his book (at least the one I bought over the weekend… don’t know if he has more) on blacks and the priesthood refers to the priesthood ban as the “so-called priesthood ban.”
Oh dear!! Honestly, I don't get that at all. I know DCP hotly claimed that "so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre" only meant that it is normally called such, but frankly, that makes no sense at all.
So why would someone call it the "so-called" ban? It was obviously a ban.
I think that "so-called" in this instance definitely means "normally called such" or "commonly referred to as."
Good try, but no cigar. Are you really expecting us to believe that your experience of the normal native English-speaker's use of 'so-called' in a controversial context does not overwhelmingly and in nearly every case carry the sense of "people say it is one of these [e.g. a massacre] but it isn't really?"
Now I agree that in certain technical discussions 'so-called' may be a way of introducing a 'term of art': "In so-called 'gene splicing' one proceeds as follows". But that is not relevant here.
The example you cite to support your reading of DCPs post is in fact a neat parallel to it - an LDS apologist referring to something he can't dodge (DCP: there WAS a massacre; Martins: there WAS a priesthood ban) but would like to hold at arm's length. Use of "so-called' as a distancing/denigrating strategy ONLY happens when there is an undeniable historical fact to deal with. Other wise one would say something like 'alleged' - if one thought there was a chance of getting away with it, which in the cases of the massacre and the ban there is not.
What is meant by "respecting" a religion. I respect people's right to believe as they like. I respect religion in the sense that I try not to make offensive comments or act offensive or inappropriately around people of faith (exception being this board). I respect people who live their life according to a set of reasonable moral principles.
I DO NOT respect silly, superstitious iron-age belief systems, particularly when believers attempt to impose this silly, superstitious iron-age belief system on others.
I DO NOT respect beliefs that deny basic civil liberties or human dignity to individuals or groups, such as sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs. I don't care if they are religiously based.
I DO NOT respect beliefs that use fear and guilt to manipulate and control others.
I DO NOT respect beliefs that justify unethical behavior if it somehow serves "God's will."
Nor do I respect magical or superstitious thinking in its other various manifestations. People who believe in this kind s*** (some religions included) deserve to offended, though for propriety's sake, we may prefer other people to do the offending.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
cksalmon wrote:for other religious traditions pretty much beyond reasonable dispute." -- DCP
**********************
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous. -- DCP, 10/08/2007
I guess he meant Islam.
Just for anyone who's keeping score. CKS
I am wondering why you might think Dr. Peterson's general comment about religious traditions may somehow be in conflict with his specific comment about Calvanism. Are you assuming that the rule may be negated by single exceptions?
Better yet, are you certain that you correctly understand what Dr. Peterson means by "respect"?
guy sajer wrote:What is meant by "respecting" a religion. I respect people's right to believe as they like. I respect religion in the sense that I try not to make offensive comments or act offensive or inappropriately around people of faith (exception being this board). I respect people who live their life according to a set of reasonable moral principles.
I DO NOT respect silly, superstitious iron-age belief systems, particularly when believers attempt to impose this silly, superstitious iron-age belief system on others.
I DO NOT respect beliefs that deny basic civil liberties or human dignity to individuals or groups, such as sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs. I don't care if they are religiously based.
I DO NOT respect beliefs that use fear and guilt to manipulate and control others.
I DO NOT respect beliefs that justify unethical behavior if it somehow serves "God's will."
Nor do I respect magical or superstitious thinking in its other various manifestations. People who believe in this kind s*** (some religions included) deserve to offended, though for propriety's sake, we may prefer other people to do the offending.
Right on. Suppose I claim to be a convert to the Aztec sun cult. Do you then 'respect' my conviction that the sun will not rise tomorrow unless I am permitted to practice my religion by tearing the hearts out of living human victims?
Suppose I claim to be a convert to Thuggee, the Indian cult that demanded that I should show my devotion to Mother Kali by infiltrating groups of travellers and then murdering them by strangulation. Do you respect my religion then, in any meaningful sense?
Suppose I believe that the only way to cure the AIDS epidemic is for all left-handed people to recite 'Mary had a little lamb" at noon on alternate Fridays? Do you have to refrain from laughing so long as I tell you it is my religion that says that?