guy sajer wrote:I guess Dan must have felt that adding the phrase 'self inflating' somehow made the insult all that much more stinging. I mean, on a scale of 1-10 where 10 indicates complete moral depravity (you know, like Grant Palmer) and 1 indicates complete Sainthood (like Joseph Smith), where does a normal, non-self-inflating gas bag rank compared to a self-inflating gas bag?
Yeah, looks like you struck a nerve, guy.
(Waits for denials that a nerve was struck from certain quarters)
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
GoodK wrote:I'd just like to say, guy, that there is nothing ethically wrong with you being a self-inflating gas bag.
If there were, Daniel is equally if not more culpable.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
guy sajer wrote: I guess Dan must have felt that adding the phrase 'self inflating' somehow made the insult all that much more stinging. I mean, on a scale of 1-10 where 10 indicates complete moral depravity (you know, like Grant Palmer) and 1 indicates complete Sainthood (like Joseph Smith), where does a normal, non-self-inflating gas bag rank compared to a self-inflating gas bag?
Self inflating is much worse, doncha know.
In Dan's case, it's not his fault; it's a thyroid problem.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Trevor wrote: (Waits for denials that a nerve was struck from certain quarters)
Awww, don't say it... that lessens the potential success of the prediction! I was looking forward to Danny boy rationalizing that post away (again, only this time addressing the obvious struck nerve) as though there was someone out there that actually bought what he had to say. It's highly entertaining.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
guy sajer wrote: I guess Dan must have felt that adding the phrase 'self inflating' somehow made the insult all that much more stinging. I mean, on a scale of 1-10 where 10 indicates complete moral depravity (you know, like Grant Palmer) and 1 indicates complete Sainthood (like Joseph Smith), where does a normal, non-self-inflating gas bag rank compared to a self-inflating gas bag?
Self inflating is much worse, doncha know.
In Dan's case, it's not his fault; it's a thyroid problem.
If I'm the self-inflating gas bag, I'd conclude, as judging by our respective girths, that Dan was the non-deflating gas bag version.
(Sorry, below the belt, I admit it, but he did call me a buffoon . . . sniff)
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Well, this has been an interesting thread. I guess I ought to be concerned that Prof. P. has "jokingly" threatened to blow me away using an assault rifle.
Anyways, I was curious about this:
Daniel Peterson wrote:The fact that my religious solidarity with GoodK's father might make it more likely for me to alert him to GoodK's mockery than I would be to do something similar in a parallel case involving an atheist -- and this is most likely true, but largely only because our common Mormonism facilitates our friendship, while a Mormon/atheist divide would interfere with a friendship to some degree or another -- has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether my action was ethical or not.
I find it....odd that DCP would continually insist that the reason he "ratted out" GoodK was because he (i.e., DCP) "would want to be told if his son were posting something similar." My question is: Why? Why would DCP want to be alerted to this so-called "mocking"? What, if he were to learn of such "mocking", would he proceed to do? Or, perhaps more to the point, what did he expect or hope that GoodK's father would do? I have no doubt that the Good Professor has been very careful to avoid addressing these kinds of questions, since there is really no way that they can be spun to reflect positively or ethically upon him.
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, this has been an interesting thread. I guess I ought to be concerned that Prof. P. has "jokingly" threatened to blow me away using an assault rifle.
Woohoo! Scratch is back.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, this has been an interesting thread. I guess I ought to be concerned that Prof. P. has "jokingly" threatened to blow me away using an assault rifle.
Anyways, I was curious about this:
Daniel Peterson wrote:The fact that my religious solidarity with GoodK's father might make it more likely for me to alert him to GoodK's mockery than I would be to do something similar in a parallel case involving an atheist -- and this is most likely true, but largely only because our common Mormonism facilitates our friendship, while a Mormon/atheist divide would interfere with a friendship to some degree or another -- has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether my action was ethical or not.
I find it....odd that DCP would continually insist that the reason he "ratted out" GoodK was because he (i.e., DCP) "would want to be told if his son were posting something similar." My question is: Why? Why would DCP want to be alerted to this so-called "mocking"? What, if he were to learn of such "mocking", would he proceed to do? Or, perhaps more to the point, what did he expect or hope that GoodK's father would do? I have no doubt that the Good Professor has been very careful to avoid addressing these kinds of questions, since there is really no way that they can be spun to reflect positively or ethically upon him.
Damn, we've missed you! You missed this great thread. DCP seemed to have had a meltdown (after many years of viewing DCP's interactions on several bb's, I don't recall ever having witnessed behavior as disgraceful as his on this thread). Glad to see you back.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)