Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Mister Scratch wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:It pretty much goes for anyone who makes personal attacks. The poor form of it is compounded by the shameful hiding of the accuser.


First of all, who do you think is being "maligned"? Second, does this therefore mean you have officially condemned DCP for his personal attacks on Mike Quinn, Robert Ritner, Kevin Graham, Beastie, and whoever else?


Why accuse me of inconsistency while being inconsistent yourself? And anonymously, at that?
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:More interestingly, what can be said of people who attack others in much the same way they accuse others of doing, only under the guise of a fake name? What can be posited of one who spends so much time attacking something they don't believe in rather than enjoying or participating in something they do believe in?


Argument Addict.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _Mister Scratch »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
In practically any field of study one will find people who disagree in a conciliatory way, some who fight, some who avoid fighting, some who enjoy fighting and seek fighting, some who simply enjoy the discussion, etc. etc. This is certainly not confined to LDS "mopologetics." It would be patently absurd were anyone to think otherwise.


That's terrific. However, I'm not interested in generalizing things at this point. Instead, I'm more interested in theorizing Mopologetics.

Why accuse me of inconsistency while being inconsistent yourself? And anonymously, at that?


Why should I care about being consistent? I'm not the Mopologist. I don't have a "holy mission" that I need to fulfill, nor do I have an old craving for missionary-style bashing. I guess the categories must have hit a bit close to home for you.
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:More interestingly, what can be said of people who attack others in much the same way they accuse others of doing, only under the guise of a fake name? What can be posited of one who spends so much time attacking something they don't believe in rather than enjoying or participating in something they do believe in?


Argument Addict.



Ah, it fits the simple profile. It's fun discovering motives and boxing people into types in my opinion. ;)
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Mister Scratch wrote:Why should I care about being consistent? I'm not the Mopologist. I don't have a "holy mission" that I need to fulfill, nor do I have an old craving for missionary-style bashing. I guess the categories must have hit a bit close to home for you.


Yes. Disagreement means the categories "hit home" to me. A brilliant observation.

So what fuels your unholy mission, Scratch?
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _Mister Scratch »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Ah, it fits the simple profile. It's fun discovering motives and boxing people into types in my opinion. ;)


Yes, the Mopologists do this all the time, using the type "anti-Mormon." You should feel glad that I am at least providing multiple categories, and that I'm happy to revise them. We should all bear in mind that Dr. Shades's Chapel/Internet Mormon categories were resisted with a great deal of vigor as well. And yet, they have turned out to be extraordinarily useful.

LoaP wrote:Yes. Disagreement means the categories "hit home" to me. A brilliant observation.


What's wrong with the categorizations, LoaP? You have already admitted to being utterly terrified at admitting your motivations. Well, then, why not criticize the categories? Are they accurate, or do they successfully theories Mopologetic Motivation?

So what fuels your unholy mission, Scratch?


I already stated above, in response to The Nehor. You need to read.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _Trevor »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:More interestingly, what can be said of people who attack others in much the same way they accuse others of doing, only under the guise of a fake name? What can be posited of one who spends so much time attacking something they don't believe in rather than enjoying or participating in something they do believe in?


I don't know, maybe they're human beings? Imagine the sheer hypocrisy.
“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.”
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _cksalmon »

Mister Scratch wrote:And which logical fallacy is this? Argumentum ad ignorantum?

That I don't find your typologies convincing or fundamentally explanatory does not entail that I'm appealing to ignorance. There's no logical fallacy in suggesting that I don't find your analysis unconvincing.

Well, I categorically reject your logical fallacy. It should be pretty obvious that the taxonomy laid out in the OP is theoretical in nature. I cannot see how your simplification of everything offers up any better explanation.

Good. Then you're the recto to my verso.
(2) No, if your analysis is really true, then everyone everywhere who truly believes anything actually to be true should immediately stop defending their claims and/or arguing their claims for its truthfulness.


Why do you say that? The schematic is meant to deal specifically with LDS apologetics. You are the one who is wanting to broaden the scope of things. Why might that be?


No, not really. I'm referring very specifically to your quoted statement below. You stated:
Also, your suggestion overlooks a very basic question: if something is "true," why would it need any "defense"---particularly the kind of "defense" that exemplifies LDS apologetics?

You move from generality to particularity, here. If your point is meant only to apply to LDS apologetics (rather than particularly to LDS apologetics), you should've made that clear. You suggested, rather, that your point was "very basic"; and, so, in terms of your quoted statement, I believe my response stands.

Best.

cks
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _wenglund »

Trevor wrote:Right, Wade. I guess the concept of metaphor escapes you.


As expected, you have guessed wrong, and ironically so.

See if you can follow the line of discussion: 1) by way of confused and misguided sarcasm, you metaphorically referred to the people here as "flies"; 2) I quoted your "flies" metaphor in the process of exposing your evident confusion; 3) then, in another moment of confused and misguided sarcasm, you ironically suggested that it was insulting for me to call the participants here "flies".

Are you with me so far?

If so, and assuming you are capable of some semblence of reasoning when it comes to critically examining yourself, then you should rationally conclude that either the metaphor of "flies" excaped you when I used it (i.e. when I was quoting you), or you were unwittingly indicting yourself when claiming it was insulting for me to refer to the folks here as "flies" (metaphorically or otherwise). Either way, it doesn't bode well for your credibility.

Even more hilarious is someone misthinking it condescending to view people as having great potential.


If that is what you had done, maybe. But you didn't.


Again, as expected, you guessed wrong. But, I don't have the patience to walk you through the corrections.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by Gadianton on Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

Post by _Mister Scratch »

B23 wrote:
Juliann? Hmm...do I really want to get banned at MAD? :question:

But I think there are numerous more categories that can be applied to apologists of all religions on internet message boards, such as:

1) Assholes who happen to be Mormon Apologists
2) Bored Housewives who want to kill the day and happen to be Mormon Apologists
3) People so ape**** they were rejected as winter maintence guy at the Overlook Hotel and happen to be Mormon Apologists

etc etc etc...


Some interesting observations here. Would you say, Bond, that number 1 could be lumped in with "Argument Addicts"? Further, might your number 2 fit into the "Failed Mormon" category? We need to remember that a lot of the female MAD posters feel resentful about their "2nd Class" status (in a sense, they have "failed" to hold the priesthood, right?), and that they harbor a bit of a feminist steak. I'm sure we all remember that classic thread in which Calmoriah was talking about how she wanted to be able to pass the sacrament (or something like that). Thus, participating in Mopologetics can help some of them feel more useful. So, I guess what you have identified is a gender-specific subset within the "Failed Mormon" category.
Post Reply