Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh! Now he’s whining about his treatment outside of SeN:

“You are exactly right about this matter. I have burned a couple of days responding to utter rubbish on a different blog, where I merely posted a nice comment to the owner of the blog. And then was pounced upon by the dregs from utterly disgusting board. See Professor Peterson's sound advice to me below.”

Utter rubbish, huh? Like snitching on people to their bosses, trying to pit family members against one another, and embellishing his military record. Yeah, ok buddy.

- Doc

[_moksha]

Oh! Now he’s whining about his treatment outside of SeN:

“You are exactly right about this matter. I have burned a couple of days responding to utter rubbish on a different blog, where I merely posted a nice comment to the owner of the blog. And then was pounced upon by the dregs from utterly disgusting board. See Professor Peterson's sound advice to me below.”

Utter rubbish, huh? Like snitching on people to their bosses, trying to pit family members against one another, and embellishing his military record. Yeah, ok buddy.

- Doc

The comment could be read as being nice if you did not know the backstory. Once you know the backstory, the comment takes on a whole other meaning.

[_Dr LOD]

And why is Dr. Velho Burrinho not here demonstrating that I am a racial bigot who detests the Maori Saints, which he has been doing for days on Gina Colvin's blog, where I have been accused of all kinds of crimes like stalking people and dobbin them in to a certain Apostolic committee that tracks those pretending to be Latter-day Saints while blasting away at the faith of the Saints while hiding behind often bizarre screen names, like Dr. LOD on what Kiwi57 likes to call the Sty, but not the minor infection on the lid, but more like a Pig Sty.

Louis, I'm not on SeN because I was banned from there because you couldn't handle our exchange, and Dan cut things short so you wouldn't continue to embarrass yourself. So this victory lap comment of yours is quite amusing.

I don't blast away at any of the foundational truths of the LDS church. The last I checked the identity of the "Lehites" was not considered part of that. I do feel free to criticize your self serving racist and colonialistic interpretations of Maroi religion and culture.

[_Lemmie]

And why is Dr. Velho Burrinho not here demonstrating that I am a racial bigot who detests the Maori Saints, which he has been doing for days on Gina Colvin's blog, where I have been accused of all kinds of crimes like stalking people and dobbin them in to a certain Apostolic committee that tracks those pretending to be Latter-day Saints while blasting away at the faith of the Saints while hiding behind often bizarre screen names, like Dr. LOD on what Kiwi57 likes to call the Sty, but not the minor infection on the lid, but more like a Pig Sty.

Louis, I'm not on SeN because I was banned from there because you couldn't handle our exchange, and Dan cut things short so you wouldn't continue to embarrass yourself. So this victory lap comment of yours is quite amusing.

I don't blast away at any of the foundational truths of the LDS church. The last I checked the identity of the "Lehites" was not considered part of that. I do feel free to criticize your self serving racist and colonialistic interpretations of Maroi religion and culture.

Midgley’s ratcheting up of his lies each time he “reports” on a person is very well established. But even for Midgley, this next one is over the top:

One must keep in mind that Velho Burrinho MD insists that white men are all racial bigots.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4891396311

Lol. Where do you go after a bizarre exaggeration like that? Midgley has zero credibility at this point.

[_Lemmie]

It appears I spoke too soon, Midgley has topped even himself:

Now learned and very loving Dr. Velho Burrinho is certain that I have made all of this up because that is what white men do, including Latter-day Saint missionaries to New Zealand and those who have taught Native Americans, because we all necessarily have latent racial hatred for all indigenous peoples.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4891668484

Wow. Well, so much for credibility as an academic writer. I will never again be able to read anything Midgley has written without asking in the back of my mind, ‘what round of exaggeration is this,’ and ‘how far away from the truth has Midgley strayed,’ but most particularly, ‘who does Midgley currently hate such that he has written this probable lie’?

[_Billy Shears]

Hi Lemmie,

My favorite Midgleyism happened last week. What makes it so interesting is how utterly unprovoked and mind-numbingly self-contradictory it was.

On Dr. Peterson's blog, we were discussing the topic of whether it is possible for atheists to be good citizens. In particular, several apologists we arguing that atheists have no rational basis for moral behavior with the implication that to the extent any given atheist isn't a Joseph Stalin, it is because he's drafting off of the prevailing Christian morality of Western culture.

With that context, Sam LeFevre made the following comment:

Good citizenship is fundamentally a derivative of personal values, particularly as the align with community or social values.
One of the interesting things about the military is that we (the military) spend a good deal of time re-aligning soldiers' values. Very few soldiers come into the service with an innate value of “I’ll take that hill or die trying.” In basic training, the native values of soldier-recruits are broken, and the military then instills a new set of values. Commanders take advantage of those new military-focused values to “take the hill.” Soldiers take the hill, and some "die trying." By mandating an appropriate set of values, we (the military) make good soldiers (citizens).

With that background, I believe anybody can become a good citizen by adopting values that promote good citizenship. I believe that there are many processes that can lead to the adoption of good citizenship values. Religion is one process. Family is another. A good education is another. Military service is another. And so it goes. I also believe that there are many processes that can lead to the adoption of bad citizenship values. Those include toxic religions, toxic family situations, toxic education, or toxic military experiences, and so it goes.

The trick then, is ensuring that people access processes that promote adoption of good values for good citizenship.
Two additional points. (1) It is interesting to me that the values required for good citizenship have changed in my lifetime.
(2) I am not sure that good citizenship is or should be the ultimate objective for promoting values. The hill may not be that important. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content ... enship.pdf

I thought that was a fine point, so I gave it an upvote. Fred Kratz did likewise. Generally, I would think being a good citizen of a message board means upvoting people when they make a good point, even if they are often your opponent in such discussions. (But I'm an atheist, so what do I know?)

Louis Midgley replied to LeFevre as follows:

Fred Kratz and Billy Shears are not all that bright, it seems. I suppose this is a product of their having been broken and degenerated by a ideology they have adopted. If not, let them explain why they up-voted Sam's excellent, thoughtful comment.

I am not that bright, broken, and degenerated for doing that?! What the heck?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, let’s not forget Louis Midgley is rather ‘degenerative’ himself, what with stolen valor lies and all that jazz:

viewtopic.php?p=1211742#p1211742

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

Hi Lemmie,

My favorite Midgleyism happened last week. What makes it so interesting is how utterly unprovoked and mind-numbingly self-contradictory it was.

On Dr. Peterson's blog, we were discussing the topic of whether it is possible for atheists to be good citizens. In particular, several apologists we arguing that atheists have no rational basis for moral behavior with the implication that to the extent any given atheist isn't a Joseph Stalin, it is because he's drafting off of the prevailing Christian morality of Western culture.

With that context, Sam LeFevre made the following comment:

Good citizenship is fundamentally a derivative of personal values, particularly as the align with community or social values.
One of the interesting things about the military is that we (the military) spend a good deal of time re-aligning soldiers' values. Very few soldiers come into the service with an innate value of “I’ll take that hill or die trying.” In basic training, the native values of soldier-recruits are broken, and the military then instills a new set of values. Commanders take advantage of those new military-focused values to “take the hill.” Soldiers take the hill, and some "die trying." By mandating an appropriate set of values, we (the military) make good soldiers (citizens).

With that background, I believe anybody can become a good citizen by adopting values that promote good citizenship. I believe that there are many processes that can lead to the adoption of good citizenship values. Religion is one process. Family is another. A good education is another. Military service is another. And so it goes. I also believe that there are many processes that can lead to the adoption of bad citizenship values. Those include toxic religions, toxic family situations, toxic education, or toxic military experiences, and so it goes.

The trick then, is ensuring that people access processes that promote adoption of good values for good citizenship.
Two additional points. (1) It is interesting to me that the values required for good citizenship have changed in my lifetime.
(2) I am not sure that good citizenship is or should be the ultimate objective for promoting values. The hill may not be that important. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content ... enship.pdf

I thought that was a fine point, so I gave it an upvote. Fred Kratz did likewise. Generally, I would think being a good citizen of a message board means upvoting people when they make a good point, even if they are often your opponent in such discussions. (But I'm an atheist, so what do I know?)

Louis Midgley replied to LeFevre as follows:

Fred Kratz and Billy Shears are not all that bright, it seems. I suppose this is a product of their having been broken and degenerated by a ideology they have adopted. If not, let them explain why they up-voted Sam's excellent, thoughtful comment.

I am not that bright, broken, and degenerated for doing that?! What the heck?

Hello Billy, and may I add my welcome to you to our board, along with everyone else! Also, may I say I thoroughly enjoyed your comments on the interpreter site’s Joseph Smith, Best Guesser article. You were very articulate and detailed in your posts and they were fascinating and very enlightening to read. I learned so much. Thank you for the time you put into your posts.

Re Midgley’s castigation of you and Fred for the up-vote, thank you for the explanation. I saw that last week, what an odd remark Midgley made. I upvote for the same reason as you and I think most people do the same, but Midgley seems utterly fixated on only seeing upvotes and downvotes as friendship and loyalty points, not a view of the content. That’s telling.

Also, his comment about being broken and degenerated by an ideology sounds like pure projection, nothing more. Very sad.

[_Analytics]

hilarious!

[_moksha]

I thought that was a fine point, so I gave it an upvote. Fred Kratz did likewise. Generally, I would think being a good citizen of a message board means upvoting people when they make a good point, even if they are often your opponent in such discussions. (But I'm an atheist, so what do I know?)

Louis Midgley replied to LeFevre as follows:

Fred Kratz and Billy Shears are not all that bright, it seems. I suppose this is a product of their having been broken and degenerated by a ideology they have adopted. If not, let them explain why they up-voted Sam's excellent, thoughtful comment.

I am not that bright, broken, and degenerated for doing that?! What the heck?

Dr. Midgley wanted to lash out but wasn't counting on the object of his lashing to be something supportive.