The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2008

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The only thing my example failed to fulfill was the "preferably" qualifier that you added in your parenthetical. The fact remains: you angrily and hysterically demanded an apology.

Didn't.

You don't recall correctly.

Do.

Good for you for finally realizing this, LoaP. You know, this approach is known as "mirroring" and it was pioneered long ago by Wade Englund. So, I guess you have now earned the proud distinction of being a student of Wade's, and of following in his footsteps. Will you now take over the reins at the CSSAD?

It was called to my attention that Wade once did some "mirroring," and if I understand the accusations, made a few people angry or bothered some people that way. I wasn't around for all of that, apparently, or wasn't paying any attention. In any case, sometimes it is still an effective way to teach a principle or lesson. However, "mirroring" as loosely defined is usually understood to not necessarily be deliberate, but rather a natural response (or sometimes a deliberate way to gain favor of another). I don't know if it is the proper term for my purpose, which was simply to demonstrate what I saw as faulty and hopefully raise awareness in others. In any case, some people just don't learn that way.

In no way am I arguing in behalf of Mormonism in the above posts.

Of course you're not. You are selective in the way you apply philosophical concepts, mainly because you are intellectually dishonest. If you weren't a hypocrite, you would apply the notion of intellectual solipsism to Mormonism as well. But, you don't / won't / can't. Whooosh! There goes your credibility.

I can't really lose something I never held in your eyes. That said, I make no efforts at intellectual dishonesty nor do I feel intellectually dishonest in this conversation. I was simply responding to a challenge. To me it has nothing to do with what philosophical issues or stances I currently maintain, it is simply in the interest of taking up the challenge and that is all. You can call that intellectually dishonest I suppose, but I don't think that quite grasps it.

Anyone else wanna vouch for me? Scratch is trying to make some points here and I don't think he is doing so effectively. Perhaps another poster on this board will condescend to throw in their 2 cents about the current Scratchisms.

[_Daniel Peterson]

there was a bit of hyperbole in the claim that apologists don't earn a thin dime for their efforts.

Indeed there was.

But not on my part. I never made that claim.

It's a distortion of something that I did say, recrafted and illegitimately attributed to me in order to facilitate attacks on my credibility.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

It's a distortion of something that I did say, recrafted and illegitimately attributed to me in order to facilitate attacks on my credibility.

Kinda like all of this "loap angrily demands apologies" nonsense.

Mister Scratch tries very hard at these things. An odd thing is that he makes assertions about intent and motive when I expressly know he is incorrect (seeing as how I am me and he is not) which essentially crucifies his credibility in my eyes (he apparently doesn't have enough respect for me as a person to care about that).

[_Mister Scratch]

The only thing my example failed to fulfill was the "preferably" qualifier that you added in your parenthetical. The fact remains: you angrily and hysterically demanded an apology.

Didn't.

Sure you did. Remember?

Check the board format again and fully retract your misattribution and apologize.

Quite demanding! You really suffered quite an intense melt-down on that thread, my dear friend. There's no use denying it. At one point you had sunk so low that you had to resort to trembly-lipped declarations about how you ponderously gaze out at the clouds, and how much "feelings" you have, etc.

It was called to my attention that Wade once did some "mirroring," and if I understand the accusations, made a few people angry or bothered some people that way. I wasn't around for all of that, apparently, or wasn't paying any attention. In any case, sometimes it is still an effective way to teach a principle or lesson. However, "mirroring" as loosely defined is usually understood to not necessarily be deliberate, but rather a natural response (or sometimes a deliberate way to gain favor of another). I don't know if it is the proper term for my purpose, which was simply to demonstrate what I saw as faulty and hopefully raise awareness in others. In any case, some people just don't learn that way.

In other words, your reasoning went like this: "Hey! I don't like what that person is doing! I'm going to act like a pest and a jerk so that this other person will learn a lesson!"

I can't really lose something I never held in your eyes.

But, LoaP---if you publicly demonstrate intellectual dishonesty, then you stand to lost credibility in the eyes of countless individuals. You are a budding young apologist.... Do you really want to be sunk over this issue? You really ought to make a concession of some sort. In order to save yourself.

That said, I make no efforts at intellectual dishonesty nor do I feel intellectually dishonest in this conversation.

Both points are completely irrelevant.

I was simply responding to a challenge.

And in doing so, you revealed your intellectual dishonesty.

To me it has nothing to do with what philosophical issues or stances I currently maintain, it is simply in the interest of taking up the challenge and that is all.

This might make sense if your reasoning were taking place in a vacuum, but that's not the case. You are making a point on a Mormon-themed board, in the midst of a Mormon-themed thread, and you yourself are a Mormon apologist. To make a point about solipsism, merely for the sake of criticizing someone else's point (which, it should be said, had to do with Mormonism), and to then claim that this same point needn't be applied to Mormonism, and that, in fact, it really does not fit into your philosophical-intellectual outlook/lexicon at all, is strikingly dishonest.

You can call that intellectually dishonest I suppose, but I don't think that quite grasps it.

It grasps it perfectly. Feel free to prove me wrong by applying your argument to Mormonism. I won't hold my breath.

[_Mister Scratch]

there was a bit of hyperbole in the claim that apologists don't earn a thin dime for their efforts.

Indeed there was.

But not on my part. I never made that claim.

It's a distortion of something that I did say, recrafted and illegitimately attributed to me in order to facilitate attacks on my credibility.

No, you were the one guilty of equivocation. In the midst of a conversation pertaining to how much you made from apologetics, you sneakily shifted the subject by stating that "not one dime" of your salary comes from apologetics. Neat how that works, isn't it? The back-and-forth essentially unfolded like this:

Critic: You earn money from apologetics.
DCP: Not one dime of my salary comes from apologetics.
Critic: Oh? Well, okay, I'll retract my statement.

But, obviously, you have simply dodged the issue. Some of your salary can be said to be related to apologetics. You do collect payment for apologetic work. You and your pals, for a very long time, tried to convince people that it was all done on a volunteer basis, which simply isn't true. Even such a longstanding MB participant such as Dr. Shades was utterly shocked to learn that you get paid. Why might that be?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Sure you did. Remember?

Check the board format again and fully retract your misattribution and apologize.

Quite demanding! You really suffered quite an intense melt-down on that thread, my dear friend. There's no use denying it. At one point you had sunk so low that you had to resort to trembly-lipped declarations about how you ponderously gaze out at the clouds, and how much "feelings" you have, etc.

Go ahead and provide the link, Scratch. Even from your culled quotation it is utterly obvious that your charges of "anger" have no basis in anything other than your own perception. I see no melt-down, I see me pointing out that you made a complete error in attributing something to me which I never said, and in the context of the discussion (which If I recall correctly included you asking people for apologies, as usual) I asked you for an apology. Rarely (extremely rarely. so rarely that I cannot recall a single instance of me requesting an apology from someone at least in the last 5 years. And I have no memory of one before that, so I am simply being conservative) do I request apologies in my daily conversation.

In other words, your reasoning went like this: "Hey! I don't like what that person is doing! I'm going to act like a pest and a jerk so that this other person will learn a lesson!"

Yes, I think that captures the idea somewhat. Again, I am not sure this qualifies as psychological mirroring, though. If you can direct me to a source that would indicate otherwise I welcome it.

But, LoaP---if you publicly demonstrate intellectual dishonesty, then you stand to lost credibility in the eyes of countless individuals. You are a budding young apologist.... Do you really want to be sunk over this issue? You really ought to make a concession of some sort. In order to save yourself.

At this point I can't even tell if you are being serious.

That said, I make no efforts at intellectual dishonesty nor do I feel intellectually dishonest in this conversation.

Both points are completely irrelevant.

I am fully aware my opinion needs to be meaningless to you.

I was simply responding to a challenge.

And in doing so, you revealed your intellectual dishonesty.

Agree to disagree.

To me it has nothing to do with what philosophical issues or stances I currently maintain, it is simply in the interest of taking up the challenge and that is all.

This might make sense if your reasoning were taking place in a vacuum, but that's not the case. You are making a point on a Mormon-themed board, in the midst of a Mormon-themed thread, and you yourself are a Mormon apologist. To make a point about solipsism, merely for the sake of criticizing someone else's point (which, it should be said, had to do with Mormonism), and to then claim that this same point needn't be applied to Mormonism, and that, in fact, it really does not fit into your philosophical-intellectual outlook/lexicon at all, is strikingly dishonest.

I'm pretty sure I was simply floating a hypothetical in response to a challenge. You can (and always do) believe what you want, but I know otherwise.

You can call that intellectually dishonest I suppose, but I don't think that quite grasps it.

It grasps it perfectly. Feel free to prove me wrong by applying your argument to Mormonism. I won't hold my breath.

I certainly never claimed I could effectively defeat solipsism to anyone's particular satisfaction. Can you?

[_Mister Scratch]

Even from your culled quotation it is utterly obvious that your charges of "anger" have no basis in anything other than your own perception. I see no melt-down,

Does this mean you are admitting to a solipsism on your part?

In other words, your reasoning went like this: "Hey! I don't like what that person is doing! I'm going to act like a pest and a jerk so that this other person will learn a lesson!"

Yes, I think that captures the idea somewhat.

It is amazing what people will admit to.

Both points are completely irrelevant.

I am fully aware my opinion needs to be meaningless to you.

"needs to be"? What, are you a mind-reader now?

I'm pretty sure I was simply floating a hypothetical in response to a challenge. You can (and always do) believe what you want, but I know otherwise.

First you are "pretty sure," and then you "know." Which is it? And, are you engaging in solipsism right now? Are you ready to admit that your allegiance to Mormonism is itself solipsistic?

Or, are you afraid of doing that, since it would, in essence, be tantamount to admitting that there is no objective, concrete evidence supporting the Church's truth claims?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

All of that is besides the point, though, Scratch. You can be quite effective at going off on tangential personal asides.

Back to the original assertion which has yet to be proven wrong:

Gravity doesn't exist. Nor do objects or mass. You live in a solipsistic experience, and none of this is.

You can go off and talk about who is being intellectually dishonest, and that's all well and good for you. I'll stick to this issue from now on, aside from personal matters. I will cease playing your game.

[_Trevor]

Critic: You earn money from apologetics.
DCP: Not one dime of my salary comes from apologetics.
Critic: Oh? Well, okay, I'll retract my statement.

But, obviously, you have simply dodged the issue. Some of your salary can be said to be related to apologetics. You do collect payment for apologetic work. You and your pals, for a very long time, tried to convince people that it was all done on a volunteer basis, which simply isn't true. Even such a longstanding MB participant such as Dr. Shades was utterly shocked to learn that you get paid. Why might that be?

I recall this discussion quite clearly. To this day I remain completely puzzled as to why Dr. Peterson is troubled by the fact that some of his salary has been connected, even indirectly, to his apologetic work. Good grief already. Who cares? I certainly am not trying to make a mountain out of this molehill. I wish Dr. Peterson no ill will.

The general point, which was news to many, is that apologists and the apologetic effort are materially supported (the former ever so sparsely) by the LDS Church. This was news of a sort precisely because the vision of the stalwart, hardy band of underdog apologists fighting hordes of evil, money-grasping, mercenary, so-called "ministries" of anti-Mormonism persisted. Obviously, the truth is a little less dramatic, and the LDS Church certainly does facilitate apologetics in the very same way it achieves so much else.

What is the big deal?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

First you are "pretty sure," and then you "know." Which is it? And, are you engaging in solipsism right now? Are you ready to admit that your allegiance to Mormonism is itself solipsistic?

Or, are you afraid of doing that, since it would, in essence, be tantamount to admitting that there is no objective, concrete evidence supporting the Church's truth claims?

Do you have a good response for solipsism?