Dan Peterson's Poor Judge of Character: Redux

[_MsJack]

I'm completely fine with people looking at the evidence and deciding that William didn't really say it. I agree that the evidence is somewhat ambiguous. Had I had Rollo Tomasi's testimony prior to creating my thread, I probably would have left the incident out because of the ambiguity and the potential for distraction, even though I believe that it happened because of Stak's testimony. When I was composing the thread, I knew that I wanted to leave as little room as possible for people to claim that William was either misquoted or being taken out of context. I should have guessed that his defenders would jump all over the lone example in my thread where a case could be made to that extent and make a huge deal out of it. It has long been the tactic of some apologists to take something that is an error or could be an error and use it to suggest that the entire product is faulty.

I'm not fine with people calling harmony a liar (and even Rollo Tomasi protested when William and the Willpologists were doing that). I'm not fine with people calling MrStakhanovite a "suborned witness." I don't even agree that William is lying in this case. He may have said it and forgotten, as was the case with calling Emma Smith a "champion bitch."

I'm also not fine with people acting as if that were my only complaint or even my main complaint, when it was just one example among dozens. It was added when I was nearly done composing the thread. The thread would have happened with or without it.

I am not attributing any of the behaviors in my last two paragraphs to Eric.

But for me the strongest evidence is the fact that I saw the post and it didn't phase me in the slightest when I later found out they were talking about him using the "c-word." That seemed perfectly consistent with what I saw.

He called her a "disgusting excuse of womanhood" later in the same thread. Harmony deleted that as well, but forgot to remove it from a quote. Tarski had a good post on the silliness of denying calling women "c***ts," but being willing to call them things like "most repulsive women."

[_Kishkumen]

Although, I agree that misogyny such as exhibited by Mr. Schryver is objectionable, and should never be promoted by the LDS Church, I am more concerned about this ideological warfare carried on by a small group of apocalyptic, fringe conservatives who have decided to cry witch with the implicit backing of the Church via BYU. Only a narrow-minded bigot believes that he has the only true interpretation of his faith, while all others are "fifth columnists" and "turncoats." The fact that Hamblin's call to action contains the buzz-words of culture warriors reveals this for the lamentable farce which it is.

What are these guys protecting? Mormonism? Or a bizarre strain of apocalyptic fringe conservatism? It is difficult to tell based on the way they have been behaving the past 6 weeks or so. No wonder they are being shoved out the door. I see no place for ideological warfare on the tithe-payers' dime. Sure, defend Mormonism, but this crap about attacking members whom they disagree with ideologically is not only inappropriate, it is also terribly destructive.

[_bcspace]

According to Dan Peterson's logic, calling a woman a C---T or accusing apostates of engaging in sodomistic orgies, is perfectly fine

I think it's a good time to remind everyone that "douche bag" is an acceptable descriptive term for men or women in these parts.

[_Chap]

According to Dan Peterson's logic, calling a woman a C---T or accusing apostates of engaging in sodomistic orgies, is perfectly fine

I think it's a good time to remind everyone that "douche bag" is an acceptable descriptive term for men or women in these parts.

For you, maybe. Not for me.

[_Kishkumen]

I think it's a good time to remind everyone that "douche bag" is an acceptable descriptive term for men or women in these parts.

For you, maybe. Not for me.

I'll admit I love the term douche bag. Maybe I should switch to enema?

Doesn't have the same ring. Too bad.

It's also a shame for bcspace that one person's argument does not make a cultural taboo.

[_Chap]

I'll admit I love the term douche bag. Maybe I should switch to enema?

Doesn't have the same ring. Too bad.

It's also a shame for bcspace that one person's argument does not make a cultural taboo.

Who needs rude words when accurate description of the nature and content of the posts of (say) bcspace can be far more destructive? All rude words really convey is "I don't like or respect this guy", and who cares what we think or feel?

It's much more fun to make the reader conclude someone is an idiot without saying so, rather than shouting the word at them.

[_Kishkumen]

Who needs rude words when accurate description of the nature and content of the posts of (say) bcspace can be far more destructive? All rude words really convey is "I don't like or respect this guy", and who cares what we think or feel?

It's much more fun to make the reader conclude someone is an idiot without saying so, rather than shouting the word at them.

Oh well. You're a better person than I am in this way. I should follow your example. No offense intended or taken.

[_bcspace]

It's also a shame for bcspace that one person's argument does not make a cultural taboo.

Yes, the argument overwhelmingly convicts the conscience of those who have any left.

[Guest]

Hey Kish

Sure, defend Mormonism, but this crap about attacking members whom they disagree with ideologically is not only inappropriate, it is also terribly destructive.

Indeed!

In addition to inappropriate and terribly destructive (which I certainly agree that it clearly is) I would suggest that it is also very divisive, largely unnecessary, and extremely hurtful to the people (perhaps entire families) who find themselves as the target of these things.

In my opinion, apologetics should be centered in apologetics, and should be completely silent in the personal judgement arena. Sometimes, having no voice speaks volumes!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, the argument overwhelmingly convicts the conscience of those who have any left.

You mean, those who have the kind of conscience that compels them to vote Republican?