DCP Gets Reamed by GoodK

[_Coggins7]

Uh, lemme help you out here, Coggins. The deal offered was that people should be referred to by the labels they define themselves by. You would refer to people as they choose to be labeled. Try again.

That's fine on some occasions, but not on others. This is a recipe for allowing others to set the terms of the debate and control perception by controlling the terms in which phenomena are understood. For example, I prefer "leftist", "socialist", or "collectivist" to "progressive" or "liberal", because those labels actually describe the philosophical genealogy and policy preferences of these kinds of individuals. The others are attempts at intellectual slight of hand. The same is true of terms for political public consumption like "Gay" to mean "male homosexual", "termination of an unwanted pregnancy" to mean "killing an unborn child", "contribution" to mean "forced confiscation of the fruits of the labor of productive individuals" or "African American" to mean Black people who's family lines have been in this country for centuries. Philosophical consistency and rigor would demand that someone who is openly hostile and critical of the Church be understood to be "anti" the organization and teachings to which his/her hostility is directed.

Why is this anything other than rocket science?

[_LCD2YOU]

Uh, lemme help you out here, Coggins. The deal offered was that people should be referred to by the labels they define themselves by. You would refer to people as they choose to be labeled. Try again.

That's fine on some occasions, but not on others. This is a recipe for allowing others to set the terms of the debate and control perception by controlling the terms in which phenomena are understood. For example, I prefer "leftist", "socialist", or "collectivist" to "progressive" or "liberal", because those labels actually describe the philosophical genealogy and policy preferences of these kinds of individuals. The others are attempts at intellectual slight of hand. The same is true of terms for political public consumption like "Gay" to mean "male homosexual", "termination of an unwanted pregnancy" to mean "killing an unborn child", "contribution" to mean "forced confiscation of the fruits of the labor of productive individuals" or "African American" to mean Black people who's family lines have been in this country for centuries. Philosophical consistency and rigor would demand that someone who is openly hostile and critical of the Church be understood to be "anti" the organization and teachings to which his/her hostility is directed.

Why is this anything other than rocket science?

I think I'll refer to you as the "Anti-Reality Poster Child"

You may call me any name you wish, as long as it's not "late for supper".

But if you want to know what I want to be called, I choose to be called, "Brian".

[_Coggins7]

What this looks more to me like is that Joseph is making it up as he goes along. That's the "Joseph asks a question of the Lord" part that you'd mention. He doesn't so much ask the question of the Lord as recognize something he'd like to "reveal" in the name of the Lord, and then do so.

Don't you just love intellectual substance?

[_moksha]

Coggins I like your new avatar but I am curious if it is a photoshopped combo of a Samurai and one of the characters from Planet of the Apes?

[_Moniker]

Uh, lemme help you out here, Coggins. The deal offered was that people should be referred to by the labels they define themselves by. You would refer to people as they choose to be labeled. Try again.

That's fine on some occasions, but not on others. This is a recipe for allowing others to set the terms of the debate and control perception by controlling the terms in which phenomena are understood. For example, I prefer "leftist", "socialist", or "collectivist" to "progressive" or "liberal", because those labels actually describe the philosophical genealogy and policy preferences of these kinds of individuals. The others are attempts at intellectual slight of hand. The same is true of terms for political public consumption like "Gay" to mean "male homosexual", "termination of an unwanted pregnancy" to mean "killing an unborn child", "contribution" to mean "forced confiscation of the fruits of the labor of productive individuals" or "African American" to mean Black people who's family lines have been in this country for centuries. Philosophical consistency and rigor would demand that someone who is openly hostile and critical of the Church be understood to be "anti" the organization and teachings to which his/her hostility is directed.

Why is this anything other than rocket science?

Right, we all know how you despise Orwellian newspeak. I so relate! My favorite buggerboo is "collateral damage". Hmm... I wonder what reason there would be to call civilians killed and property destroyed by this euphemism? I do wonder...

If you feel the need to call me a commie or a liberal please do so in off-topic. Thanky.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins I like your new avatar but I am curious if it is a photoshopped combo of a Samurai and one of the characters from Planet of the Apes?

Clever Mok. No, that's Kuo Choi, a major Hong Kong martial arts star from the 70s and early 80s who did most of his work for the Shaw Brothers studios. Kuo was part of the so-called "Venoms", a nickname taken from one of their classic genre films, The Five Deadly Venoms". Kuo was usually the cool, serious, hero type (I've never seen him play a bad guy, except Mad Dog in Hard Boiled), and has always kind of been thought of as the "lead" Venom of the group (technically, five stars: Kuo, Lu Feng, Shang Chiang, Lo Meng, and Sun Chien). There was one other guy, Wei Pei, who was though of as sort of a fifth Venom, but he was never really a part of the group that made a number of films together as a team.

Choi, Feng, and Chiang were all Peking opera graduates from Taiwan (Jacki Chan and most of his associates studied Peking opera in HK) who moved to HK to do film work. Choi was also a master of a somewhat rare Northern Shaolin form of Chinese martial arts known as the Black Tiger style. One specialty of that form is, as far as I've been able to ascertain, the use of common items and tools as weapons. If you watch any number of his films, you'll see Kuo Choi, or other stuntmen he's trained, using a chair, bench, stool, barrel lid, or other common items as weapons. His really interesting weapon was bowl and chopsticks. Its a real style, and quite interesting to see performed.

The make up is classic Wu Sha, or swordplay film make up, which itself is derived at least somewhat from traditional Peking Oprah theatrical stage make up, and I think is pretty much based on Ming Dynasty hair styles and appearance (at least, as theatrically represented).

[_Gadianton]

Unless I'm mistaken, this person thinks s/he is referring to something I'm supposed to have said.

It's true that I said that the adjective Mormon can refer to people, architecture, history, geographical areas, literature, doctrine, wedding receptions, and a whole range of other things. If anybody here can show me, though, where I ever suggested that disagreement with Mormon doctrine necessarily indicates or entails hostility to Mormon people, I would greatly appreciate the assistance.

I think strong disagreement and strong personal hostility are sometimes very difficult to disentangle, but I don't think they're by any means mutually entailed.

I was responding to this:

While the term anti-Semite refers to a hostility to Semitic people, and never is used to denote opposition to "Semitic architecture" or Semitic history for the simple reason that such concepts scarcely exist, the term anti-Mormon cannot be presumed to have the limited semantic range that you wish to assign to it because the adjective Mormon is used to refer to a wider range of phenomena than merely the animate human or personal.

and to:

An anti-Mormon is opposed to Mormonism (and/or to Mormons). That's what the prefix anti- means. Very few Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Presbyterians, Sikhs, Jews, or Armenian Orthodox are anti-Mormons.

We also speak of anti-coagulants, anti-abortionists, anti-Communists, antilock brakes, antihistamines, antacids, anti-bacterial soaps, anti-logging activists, anti-Semitism, antitrust laws, the nineteenth-century anti-Masonic movement, and hundreds of other such things."

I'm honestly stunned that Dr. Peterson would admit this so frankly. The word "Mormon," according to him, refers to animate people, it refers to architecture, it refers to doctrine and many if not all things Mormon. Hence the term "anti-Mormon" refers to someone who is opposed to Mormons or Mormonism. This, in stark contrast to anti-Semitism which refers only to semitic people. Likewise, "anti-Communist" or "anti-abortionist" presumably are opposed to doctrines, not people. So if someone is opposed to the silly prohibitions against eating pork by an outrageous God in the Old Testament, this person would not be an anti-Semite for this reason alone. Yet if a critic opposes the architecture of the Provo temple, or opposes Smith's immorality, then the person is an anti-Mormon and must wear the badge, as S. Lloyd insists. He can't protest, as Dr. Peterson freely admits, that he wears the same label as one who plots to bomb a stake center or do bodily harm to Mormons.

Further, this unfortunate situation is by the apologists' design. Knowing how broad the term Mormon is, the apologists are banking on the implication from contra doctrine to the Carthage mob. If it were not so, then apologists would be more specific in their "anti" label, perhaps coining "anti-Mormon" as those who wish to hurt Mormon people and "anti-Mormon doctrine" as those who oppose Mormon doctrine and so on. Since many other words prefixed with "anti" are narrow, the same precautions wouldn't need to be taken. As Dr. Peterson is freely admitting here.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think Coggins makes an interesting point. When he tries to apply self-descriptors such as "intellectually serious," he's really just trying to control the terms of the debate. It would be preferable for him to be more accurate: e.g., "Gomer Pyle-esque rube," or "fifth string apologist," etc. It continues to amuse me greatly that he is so far down on the totem pole of respectability that he was basically shooed off the MADboard when he went hunting for pro-BoA stuff. Lol....

[_Mister Scratch]

This was another interesting comment by obiwan:

1. If they are simply sharing THEIR personal beliefs, then, there is nothing anti there.

2. But, if they are telling US what our history, beliefs, etc. actually is, contrary to what it in fact is, even as they do after we've corrected them, then that makes them anti-mormon.

The problem with number 2 is that it is so subjective. If I state that, as a Mormon, I believed God had sex with Mary, and then cite the references from past prophets that led me to this belief, does that alone make me an "anti-mormon"?

Yes. Likewise, I was involved in a thread in which I pointed out that the ban on interracial marriage still has not been publicly rebuked/lifted, and was put in the queue for it, despite having provided numerous references and citations. Obiwan's number 2 should be re-written to say, "But, if they are telling US what our embarrassing history, beliefs, etc., actually is, completely in line with the facts and scriptures, even after we've tried to proffer up the best spin we can muster, then that makes them anti-mormon."

[_dartagnan]

Why does Dan keep noting that "anti-Mormon" I used by anti-Mormons themselves?

By that logic, it must be OK to call African Americans "niggers" since they apply the term to themselves. In fact, they say it more than anyone.