I'm beginning to think it isn't worth it

[_Shrill Weaver]

Why are we talking about pee pee and masterbation?

I guess it it gives us a chance to chuckle a little as we think about the pleasures of life.

Paul O

But, then, there are always those couple guys who wandered in to share an erstwhile innocent draught from the common intellectual well, unaware of their newly-present context, and find it truly bizarre to have stumbled upon a pissing contest whose only goal is to drown one's partner in one's own intellectually-acrid uric acid.

Maybe later they have coffee at Waffle House and talk about their kids. They're both too embarrassed to mention the former apologetic "party" they'd both attended stag. Both find themselves embarrassed, simultaneously, for themselves and for the other.

This somehow results in a friendship completely divorced from Internet apologetics.

Hey, it could happen.

~~Southwest

[_maklelan]

Well, there's always masturbation (another favorite subject of message board debates, especially it seems, among secularly inclined exmos).

The topic of masturbation can actually be used to counter an oft-used Moplogist stance, which is why I brought it up on the other board. How many times have you heard maklelan, smac97, or DCP argue that the fact that modern science has acknowledged ill effects of tobacco and alcohol constitutes evidence that the Church is true?[/quote]

Zero times. Either support this assertion or admit you were just making up facts. Since you neither can nor will do either, I'll just let everyone know that this is false.

[_Paul Osborne]

The topic of masturbation

On the other hand . . . .

Which hand are we talking about?



Paul O

[_harmony]

Zero times. Either support this assertion or admit you were just making up facts. Since you neither can nor will do either, I'll just let everyone know that this is false.

Which assertion? the one that science has found that tobacco and alcohol are bad and that proves the church is true? or the one that says you and the others said that? or the one about masturbation... well, nevermind about that one.

[_Daniel Peterson]

How many times have you heard maklelan, smac97, or DCP argue that the fact that modern science has acknowledged ill effects of tobacco and alcohol constitutes evidence that the Church is true?

I don't recall ever making that argument. Do you have a reference?

[_Morrissey]

I
And it's even worse on message boards, the wild wild west of the debating frontier. I can hardly think of anything more pointless than debating on a message board with people who think they know it all and are fearless sitting in the comfort of their private computer room (as Roger Waters once sang, "Oh, the bravery of being out of range").

Oh yeah, says you

Frankly, I am a bit surprised that anyone would even assume that discussion boards such as this one might foster reasoned debate among (relatively) open-minded and mutually respectful antagonists. I've perused a number of discussion boards, and closed-minded lack of civility is much more the norm from what I've seen. Rcrocket's harangue against anonymity is justified in one respect: it encourages people to behave in ways they would not dare do so in polite society. (Although in his case, he posts under his own name, yet manages to achieve consistently high levels of incivility, so the absence of anonymity is clearly not sufficient to create civil discussion.)

My observation is that some people take this way too seriously. I mean, some of the posts I've seen (e.g., the one on Martha Nibley Beck) must take literally 30 minutes or more, and I'm guessing frequently more) to construct, and to what effect? Like anyone is really going to convince Pahoran--or to be fair, Eric--of anything?

The cost/benefit ratio of typing long arguments and counter-arguments cannot by any means be positive, can it? (Unless one's utility function is maximized by arguing for argument's sake.)

[_JohnStuartMill]

I'm currently unable to search the MAD board. If anyone wants to pull some strings to at least get my searching privileges back, I could find the thread in question.

Also, note that I didn't say that you offered scientific findings against the healthfulness of alcohol consumption as conclusive evidence for Mormonism.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm currently unable to search the MAD board. If anyone wants to pull some strings to at least get my searching privileges back, I could find the thread in question.

Also, note that I didn't say that you offered scientific findings against the healthfulness of alcohol consumption as conclusive evidence for Mormonism.

In Google, you can type your search string(s) and then type,

site:www.mormonapologetics.org

This will limit your search to the MAD website.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Thanks, but I've tried that, and didn't find what I was looking for. The Google method is relatively laborious, and it doesn't return everything you'd get from a MAD search.

[_why me]

Will, there's not a doubt in your mind that Joseph Smith was a truthful man and a prophet of God, that the scroll is longer than any critic dare imagine and that your argument is rock solid. The facts will surely bear that out. All is right in Mormonism. You possess The Truth.

More power to you, Pangloss.

KA

If it just depended on Joseph Smith you may have a point about your own understanding of Joseph Smith but unfortunately for you...they are other people involved in the fraud if it were a fraud. I can count at least 11 witnesses, their wives, and plus the sidney rigdon, if he wrote the Book of Mormon. Now that is quite a circle of conspirators.