True to Form
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:54 am
Yesterday in the “Prof. P. Continues to Attack GIMR!!!” thread I posted the following:
Today I was reading a thread at MAD. Kerry Shirts thought he would take a moment to relish in the FROB 18/2, while bragging about how Bob Bennet had “Smacked” Duwayne Anderson in his review. And then Tarski came in to rain on Kerry’s parade - again. After demonstrating numerous errors in the review, guess who decided to pop in and exercise the apologist’s favorite technique? You guessed it, Pahoran. Here is a little run-down on how Pahoran tried to poison the well with the usual method exemplified in the numerous examples above:
As usual, Pahoran was outclassed. He did not have the required knowledge base to challenge Tarski on the subject matter at hand, so he had to go with what works (on MAD anyway): ad hominem and well posioning. Tarski let Pahoran be Pahoran, the jack ass that he is. And of course, Pahoran decided to take advantage of the moment to taunt him and accuse him of only “pretending” to ignore him.
Ultimately, Pahoran did not answer the question. He did not present any “lies.” He did not refute anything Tarski had said, nor did he add anything of value to the discussion whatsoever. All he did was claim the author in question was a liar, and in so doing, he knew perfectly well that the simple-minded LDS would need to hear no more. That is the quick victory for the desperate apologist. People that lie, or even get accused of lying, are typically never given the benefit of the doubt, and Pahoran’s mission is done. Everything that person writes must be wrong. As I said yesterday, this method is sad because it actually works in LDS apologetics. But logically speaking it is fallacious.
So kudos to Tarski, who has become one of my favorite posters to read, second only to The Dude. It is refreshing to hear people speak passionately, but even more so when they are actually informed on the subject matter.
An uncaring smear campaign is all it is. LDS apologists love this game and it is not something that is out of favor with the likes of Peterson, Hamblin or Midgely. The sad thing is that it works! LDS members follow the paradigm of spirituality. Everyone is judged by spirituality. If you can point out sins in any given person, LDS members will generally ignore everything they say because the perception is that their sin precludes them from being able to say anything of importance truthfully; especially things about the gospel. This is why so much attention is focused on Walter Martin’s fake doctorates and less attention is focused on his theological arguments. He lied about his doctorate, so why would we believe what he says about the Bible? This is also why so much attention is focused on Brent Metcalfe being a former security guard at the Church archives, and less attention is directed to his arguments. If one can create suspicion that Metcalfe abused his position to steal valuable information from the archives, then who cares what he writes about?
Over at FAIR during the summer one poster named Pacman spent forever and a day trying to make Metcalfe’s history the subject, completely abdicated any obligation to deal with his arguments. Similarly, when Ed Ashment was brought up over at ZLMB a few years ago, DCP directed everyone’s attention to his own investigative efforts about the man. Apparently, Ashment had yet to obtain a doctorate from the University of Chicago, even though critics often advertised that he is a “doctoral candidate.” Peterson felt that by mentioning this unusual scenario – someone being a doctoral candidate for about a decade – would somehow cast doubt on his scholarship and provide observing LDS faithful with all the reason they needed to dismiss him and his arguments. Again, it seemed to have worked.
When JP Holding quickly became a force to be reckoned with, rumors started spreading quickly on the LDS e-list about how he was using a pseudonym, and thanks to a whacked out and obsessive atheist named Farrell Till – who investigated him - some LDS apologists found out his real name and Pahoran decided to publish it for the first time without his consent. Again, the implication is that the critic is telling lies – why else use a pseudonym, right?
When Tvedtness told me in an email that Metcalfe had swindled Christenson’s wife out of the KEP photos by taking advantage of a bereaved widow, I was appalled. This was when I was in pure TBM mode and I bought it. I wanted to buy it. Metcalfe was mopping the floors with me on ZLMB at the time. I then brought it up on ZLMB by asking Metcalfe questions about how he obtained the photos. His version of events differed dramatically from Tvetdnes’s. I then emailed him back and Tvetdness would not stand by his original story and admitted he really didn’t know the facts. But the point is he was willing to spread this vitriol about for apologetic purposes.
On another occasion – about 6 years ago - I sent Lou Midgley an email with some concerns I had with some arguments by Charles Larsen. His response? It was short and bitter and something along these lines: “Chuck Larsen is a former prison guard. John Gee is a minted Egyptologist from Yale. You do the math.” That was it. That was the apologetic relief I received from a FARMS notable.
I shared these concerns with DCP in a private email a few months ago, but instead of acknowledging the fact that poisonous gossip exists in his little academic echo chamber, he just accused me of attacking his friends.
Today I was reading a thread at MAD. Kerry Shirts thought he would take a moment to relish in the FROB 18/2, while bragging about how Bob Bennet had “Smacked” Duwayne Anderson in his review. And then Tarski came in to rain on Kerry’s parade - again. After demonstrating numerous errors in the review, guess who decided to pop in and exercise the apologist’s favorite technique? You guessed it, Pahoran. Here is a little run-down on how Pahoran tried to poison the well with the usual method exemplified in the numerous examples above:
Pahoran: Duwayne "snip-and-lie" Anderson
Tarski: Snip and lie? What lie?
Pahoran: Yes, it's an old debate technique of his.
Tarski: No answer? You accused him of lying. I ask again; where is the lie sir!
Pahoran: I was not referring to his book, sir. I was referring to his preferred debate technique, sir. He would snip away most of what he was responding to, blatantly misrepresent it, and then attack the misrepresented version, sir. This was his favourite technique. I have no hesitation is declaring him a completely unscrupulous and unprincipled liar. As a matter of passing interest, it now seems that you, sir, are emulating that technique.
Tarski: Could you make your insults and accusations toward me veiled at least? Since you are calling me a liar I will end this poor excuse for a discussion. You still haven't said what the lie would be and now I know you are just being who you are.
As usual, Pahoran was outclassed. He did not have the required knowledge base to challenge Tarski on the subject matter at hand, so he had to go with what works (on MAD anyway): ad hominem and well posioning. Tarski let Pahoran be Pahoran, the jack ass that he is. And of course, Pahoran decided to take advantage of the moment to taunt him and accuse him of only “pretending” to ignore him.
Ultimately, Pahoran did not answer the question. He did not present any “lies.” He did not refute anything Tarski had said, nor did he add anything of value to the discussion whatsoever. All he did was claim the author in question was a liar, and in so doing, he knew perfectly well that the simple-minded LDS would need to hear no more. That is the quick victory for the desperate apologist. People that lie, or even get accused of lying, are typically never given the benefit of the doubt, and Pahoran’s mission is done. Everything that person writes must be wrong. As I said yesterday, this method is sad because it actually works in LDS apologetics. But logically speaking it is fallacious.
So kudos to Tarski, who has become one of my favorite posters to read, second only to The Dude. It is refreshing to hear people speak passionately, but even more so when they are actually informed on the subject matter.