Droopy wrote:No. According to LDS doctrine, the key is lineage, not race. Nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples are mentioned throughout the Book of Mormon on a regular basis, but never the term "race," a concept which it is highly doubtful would have made any sense to the vast majority of peoples (if any) in ancient times, and hence, does not appear in the Book of Mormon.
Skin color, in this case, was a symbolic marker, or outward sign of a kind of culture, and when Nephite dissenters began partaking of Lamanite culture, they took on the dress, body adornment, and other attributes of the Lamanites. Their skin color did not change, at this point, but they marked themselves in their foreheads, and altered their appearance in solidarity with their new found "counterculture."
But that's not racist. God, you're an idiot.
Your statements are so clogged with contemporary ideological baggage that serious philosophical argument with you here is probably impossible. For people such as you, there's an "ism" and an "ist" for everything, isn't there? All the better to tar and feather those who disagree with you as beyond the pall of decent humanity, and save yourself the trouble of intellectually engaging their actual arguments, or seriously critiquing your own.
Better an ism than a conspiracy theory. You haven't engaged in anything here but obfuscatory bluster. You are incapable of substantive discussion, so you bloviate about nothing and hope no one notices the emptiness behind your overinflated prose.
If insulting a woman is evidence of misogyny, and if dark skinned people are sinless, then it would appear that the world is made up of two classes of people: those who share in the general weakness, corruption, and fallenness of human nature, and those who do not.
Yes, indeed you are an idiot. Insulting all women as a group is misogyny, or didn't they teach you that word at Nathan Bedford Forrest Community College?
Those who do not (the noble savage (eco, inner city, indigenous Third World etc.) are the mascots of the Anointed. Those who do (white males, white male Christians, Americans, Europeans (unless French), females (if and only if conservative, Christian/Mormon, middle class etc.), black conservatives, successful entrepreneurs etc.) are the collective enemies of those pure children of promise who do not.
Project much, Cooter?
This is the preeminent manner in which philosophically serious discussion and debate of opposing viewpoints is circumvented for mutual moral preening, and why this particular forum is so toxic.
In summation: in place of an actual argument, you present a string of stereotypes connected by poor writing. Moral preening is a hell of a lot better than your pompous idiocy. Philosophically serious--please, you're killing me.
