The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_3sheets2thewind]

All that aside, I'm sure we can agree that if nothing else it's kind of pathetic to get off on Sport's Illustrated, National Geographic, and the JC Penny catalog.

Did I write all of that at MADB / MDD? No, of course not.

I appreciate that you choose to defend the claim.

Now, lets look are you "context" which you admit you did not provide. How can someone take something out of context when no context was provided and the only thing the person did was describe the forth coming quotes.

Also, lets consider how your quote was described.

"This one is from asbestosman on the horrors of Sports Illustrated."

You suggest that the mags could be porn though not legally defined as such. So where the out of context with the description or a misrepresentation?
And if we analyze your statement in the context of LDS audience then one can assume you believe or at least the LDS are taught the horrors of SI swimsuit issue or things like unto pornoagraphy - see Dali H. Oaks about walking pornagraphy; or avoid the appearance of evil or pornagraphy in any form. And lest consider that many non-pornographic mags are covered in Utah stores, Utah being a heavy concentration of LDS.

"What will be the next target of his opprobrium, the JC Penney catalog?"

So how did the quoter misrepresent you with this statement? If you suggest that a swimsuit catalog can be considered porn, then it is logical that a JC penny underwear adds could be used for arousal or porn well.

Even still it all goes to you not providing the context, and it is your failure for expecting other to read between the lines. More the point of out of context or misrepresentation, I think you misrepresent the person who quoted you.

you stated
"This misrepresents me because I don't think there is anything inherently pornographic about Sport's Illustrated or the JC Penney catalog or even the Victoria's Secret catalog."

did the person who quoted you say or indicate you thought the mags were inherently pornographic? Or did the person only say "horrors" of the mags, which comports with your statement that the mag - in terms of using pornography and arousal.

If the person who quoted you had only posted the statement, and not provided any description, would the quote still be out of context, even though you provided none?

----------

in terms of nemesis claiming "out of context", I think that is the typical and pathetic response that so many LDS are prone too. Rather address a quote they just claim "out of context".

[_Yoda]

If you make a claim it is up to you to prove your claim. If you are going to claim you were mistrepresnted, then prove it. I would be happy to read your explanation.

All right I will. I recognize, that mine is the burden to prove my claim. The reason I gave you the burden is that I want to change the culture of this board. I want you and others to learn how to see things in better light. However, I don't think you're willing to do that. In fact, I'll go as far as to say I think you'll disagree with my take on myself and call it a weak, pathetic cop-out reiterating your claim that Nemesis is wrong. I would love for you to prove me wrong.

The post in question is here on page 9 at the top and is as follows:

The thread on P0rnography is providing some gems. This one is from asbestosman on the horrors of Sports Illustrated. What will be the next target of his opprobrium, the JC Penney catalog?:

From a religious standpoint it is wrong to arouse yourself or others (except your spouse). This covers Swimsuit catalogs even though it might not be classified as porn in any legal sense.

This misrepresents me because I don't think there is anything inherently pornographic about Sport's Illustrated or the JC Penney catalog or even the Victoria's Secret catalog. I don't even think it's inherently sinful or wrong to look at those things. It's not the magazines themselves that is bad. The sin is in arousing yourself. Jesus Himself said that he who looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart.

Now, perhaps you believe Jesus was wrong. Perhaps you believe there is nothing wrong with arousing yourself by looking at whatever it may be. Or maybe you think that tame magazines are fine, but Penthouse is wrong. You won't hear me argue that you're inherently wrong about your opinion on arousal and that there is an obvious, secular universal standard they way there is (more or less) for abuse or theft. I recognize that what counts as appropriate dress is context and culture specific. It's fine for men to go shirtless at the beach, or running outside, but not while eating at a decent restaurant. In a different culture, it might indeed be okay.

Finally, my words were addressed to a specific audience in a specific context. I was speaking to people who accept the commandments of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I was not speaking to condemn the world for Sports Illustrated. I was speaking specifically in how a latter day saint could understand and navigate gray areas related to lust. When one understands the underlying principle for latter-day saints, one doesn't need to argue about Sport's Illustrated. Sport's Illustrated can be just fine for a faithful saint--depending on how he takes it. If he's using it for self-arousal, then the saints would consider that sin.

All that aside, I'm sure we can agree that if nothing else it's kind of pathetic to get off on Sport's Illustrated, National Geographic, and the JC Penny catalog.

Did I write all of that at MADB / MDD? No, of course not. Those who know me and have read several posts by me will probably be familiar with my take on these issues. While my views do evolve over time, I really don't think anyone familiar with my history of posting would read me so poorly as to assume I think Sport's Illustrated or the JC Penny catalog are filthy skin-mags turning men into raging pornohollics. Even if you weren't familiar with my posting history, you might have at least noted the context--speaking to faithful members about how fellow-saints view the issue of lust.


Now, prove me wrong about you blowing my explanation off and continuing to accuse Nemesis of blowing hot air. I dare you. ;)

This is a fantastic explanation, Abman!

Of course, as I stated, I KNEW that if a quote was made by you that seemed odd or "off", it was probably taken out of context. You are, by far, one of the most even-handed posters on the board. I have a lot of respect for you.

In spite of what Nemesis feels, my conflict is not with MDD, as a whole, but rather with him, individually, and his stupidity.

I do NOT agree with his posting Shades' in real life name in public. I do NOT agree with him digging into my private messages on his board years ago, taking MY comments out of context, and banning me for it. I also do NOT agree with his consistency in fanning the flames, trying to keep a board war alive.

[Analytics]

did the person who quoted you say or indicate you thought the mags were inherently pornographic? Or did the person only say "horrors" of the mags, which comports with your statement that the mag - in terms of using pornography and arousal.

Where did I mention the "horrors" of Sports Illustrated?

There is nothing inherently wrong with Sports Illustrated--that's what I was saying in the quote as anyone who read the quote on the board in the original context should have realized. If I really thought it was all about "walking pornography" or whatever, I would talked about how inappropriate it is for women to dress in skimpy clothing. I manifestly did not do so. My remarks were about arousal.

Now, you might be able to make hay out of saying that the quote from me wasn't out of context. However, that won't buy you much because it is indisputable that the quote misrepresents my opinion. I don't regard Sports Illustrated with "horror". I was speaking of sin--in this case the sin of lust. I think it's obvious that sin not well-regarded. Was my writing really so poor that someone would have to do tremendous work reading between the lines to ascertain this? Really?

ETA: I never targeted Sport's Illustrated with opprobrium. I targeted lust with such. Good grief. Are you really that dense? The phrase "this covers" followed by the things mentioned in the thread (swimsuit mags) should have made that clear. I wasn't providing a list of bad or good. I was explaining the underlying principle (first quoted sentence).

[_Yoda]

Was my writing really so poor that someone would have to do tremendous work reading between the lines to ascertain this? Really?

No, it was not. I understood you perfectly.

[_3sheets2thewind]

abestosman,

you were not misrepresent and you were not taken out of context. You provided no context.

additionally the person who quoted you did not go into detail about what they thought you meant. The person accurately surmised what you posted. You stated it was wrong for LDS to do a certain thing, it is not a leap to say that you have criticism for LDS doing the thing you said is wrong.

You were not misrepresented, its just that simple, that you come back and say "Well I provided no context, and now I will tell you what I meant" is a lame excuse and piss-poor claim for saying you were taken out of context.

if you have no context to then nothing can be taken out of context. and since you left it to the reader to try and figure out what you meant because you were not clear, then you have no basis for complaint.

now you are welcome to dig up the post from whence the quote to support your claim of out of context, but a post hoc explanation with a retro active "out of context" claim is just simply lame.

[_asbestosman]

now you are welcome to dig up the post from whence the quote to support your claim of out of context, but a post hoc explanation with a retro active "out of context" claim is just simply lame.

Well, you win. I can't find the original post.


But I've gotta hand it to you. I just love how it's my fault if someone misreads me, and also my fault if I misread someone else. Heads I win, tails I lose. I just love playing games by your rules.


I never claimed I provided no context in the original. That's your misrepresentation. I said I didn't spell everything out in detail. I rarely do so unless it becomes apparent after the fact that I was misunderstood or misrepresented. I never claimed I wasn't clear in the original. That, again, is your opinion--or lie. Take your pick.

Yes, I think LDS who use Swimsuit magazines to get aroused are doing something wrong. That indeed wouldn't be a leap. That's what I was saying. The leap was in thinking I would target the JC Penny catalog or that I targeted SI. But of course that leap was justified in your opinion while you carefully claim that Equality did not go into detail about what he thought I meant--thereby implying that Equality was careful and did not expound past what I intended--at least not beyond justification.

[_moksha]

Asbestosman, my daughter loves your avatar. She observed that it is one of the laser cats from Saturday Night Live.

[_asbestosman]

Well, you'll have to thank KA for my avatar.


By the way, I'd better announce that I'll be out of town tomorrow. It's obviously because 3 sheets has me trounced here. It doesn't have anything to do with a trip I've been planning on taking with my family.

[_gramps]

Bookofmormontruth wrote:

What is more revealing is that these anti-Mormon's disgust for Joseph Smith is that they end up defending the mob's actions. You know, raping, murdering and pillaging the Saints? It was all "unintentional". Joseph Smith "deserved" it.

If given the chance these anti-Mormons would be running around with the same cowardly mob

This doesn't need any context, in my estimation.

However, feel free to check out Pa Pa's thread for yourself. It is near the top or go here directly:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=13319

The resident philosopher guru there is even going after believers with temple recommends. Anyway, an enjoyable thread all around.

Good luck, Mudcat!

[_Buffalo]

Everyone knows that as soon as you reject the truth claims of the church, you'll soon have murder in your heart. Right?