Consensual And Nonconsensual Immorality: First Principles

[_Mister Scratch]

No, it's not true. I have a job. Would you like to know what it is?

I would like to know, Scratchy! :)

Lol... Yes, I'm quite sure that you, DCP, Plutarch, the SCMC, juliann, Pahoran, and countless others would like to know. It's really not important, or anything special, and it would simply provide more ammo for those who deal in ad hominem attacks. E.g., "Oh, well, you're a plumber! How the hell would you know anything about the Church?"

[_Mister Scratch]

Just a note Scratch: get the Hell of of this thread and go back and pupate under the wet rottong log from under which you crawled. This thread, you intellectually threadbear poseur, was especially intended as an extended, serious, phlosophically critical exploration of the issues raised in the title and by me in another thread with Roger. You were not invited, you are not welcome, and you have nothing to add to it but your typical google search, cut-and-paste pseudo philosophising.

I have rarely in my life met someone so incapable of yet so insistent upon serious criticism of something. You have no business criticising the Church Scratch. You don't' have the intellectual temperment, the substantive knowledge of your subject you need, or frankly, from my perspective, the personal credibilty to pose here as a serious critic of this belief system.

I'm sure their's a Gay Pride march or International Answer rally you can participate in that will allow you to wave placards, shout slogans, chant politically correct mantras, holds hands and sway while singing Imagine, and hurl invective and caulumny at your cultural whipping boys without having to worry about carefully crafted arguments, close reasoning, and deep, creative thought. That's really your style Scratch, not serious dialog.

I'm officially closing this thread down. Yup, you heard me. I will no longer participate in it as now, as in most other threads that have any promise of becoming something other than another rant session for various neurotics fixated on the Mormon church as opposed to working through their own developmental life tasks, Scratch has invaded and colonized it in order to make it another of his own little playgrounds within which he can frolic to and fro derailing serious discourse, inserting irrelevant and provocative psychological material of his own creation (as is common with some others as well, such as Jersey Girl's lycanthropic alter ego LSD) and calling names.

Frankly Scratch, its high time you turn your hat around, pull up your pants, and get a job.


Loran

Hi Loran, don't let Scratch get to ya, Bro! I'm still here :-)

for what it's worth, I thank you for your levity here, Roger---and my apologies if I did really and truly derail the discussion. I had no idea that Loran was so set on "excluding" me! Further, I don't really understand why he reacts this way to my posts... It seems his "heart is full of hate."

Actually, i composed THE post of the thread, the other night. But, as you know things weren't up to par on site...so i lost it to cyber-space. And, Scratch had nothing to do with it. Or, did he??? ;-) Anyone who knows IF retrieval is possible & knows how to do it, PLEASE teach me.

Retrieval, so far as I know, is not possible, unfortunately. If you find yourself composing a lengthy post, you can just copy it, by highlighting the whole thing, and selecting "copy" in the Edit pull down menu. Then, just log in again, and paste the post into the window.

Loran, i am sorry that you take such umbrage from your exchanges with Mr. S. After all it is a public forum, open to all & Scratch is entitled to particpate, as is anyone. I hope you'll reconsider after the deep-breathing & counting-to-10 thing, and come back better for the experience. If ya wanna do deep stuff, maybe use my 'PM' box??? Warm regards, Roger

Maybe some anger management classes would be in order.

[_Coggins7]

Hi Loran, don't let Scratch get to ya, Bro! I'm still here :-) Actually, i composed THE post of the thread, the other night. But, as you know things weren't up to par on site...so i lost it to cyber-space. And, Scratch had nothing to do with it. Or, did he??? ;-) Anyone who knows IF retrieval is possible & knows how to do it, PLEASE teach me.

Loran, i am sorry that you take such umbrage from your exchanges with Mr. S. After all it is a public forum, open to all & Scratch is entitled to particpate, as is anyone. I hope you'll reconsider after the deep-breathing & counting-to-10 thing, and come back better for the experience. If ya wanna do deep stuff, maybe use my 'PM' box??? Warm regards, Roger

Of course Scratch can post. He can say anything he want's on this thread. I just won't be here anymore. This is a tactic with him and I'm pretty sure its a conscious one. He's done the same thing to Wade and to me on other threads: interpolate an irrelevant point of order (the alleged Naturalistic Fallacy I had allegedly committed) and then dig in his heels, come Hell or high water, and divert the entire thread to a discussion of the usually insignificant (and in this case, irrelevant) quibble.

Scratch is a polemicist with the mind of a political activist, not a serious thinker with the mind and temperment of a philosopher. That's clear to every LDS who's debated him. Free speech, as usual, has nothing to do with it. I told him to get off the thread and let serious minds have the floor. Of course, I can't impose my will on him nor would I (unlike him), if I could. I could have asked him nicely, of course, but that would only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and bring on another savage blood squirting attack.

In fact, OK, I'm going to start this entire thing over again in the Celestial Room. Anyone desiring an exploration of the issues involved in this thread in a serious, measured, philosophical manner please come on over. We'll try this just one more time.

[_Coggins7]

Never mind, I'll just leave it right here. The same thing would transpire there anyway. Forget I mentioned it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi Loran, don't let Scratch get to ya, Bro! I'm still here :-) Actually, i composed THE post of the thread, the other night. But, as you know things weren't up to par on site...so i lost it to cyber-space. And, Scratch had nothing to do with it. Or, did he??? ;-) Anyone who knows IF retrieval is possible & knows how to do it, PLEASE teach me.

Loran, i am sorry that you take such umbrage from your exchanges with Mr. S. After all it is a public forum, open to all & Scratch is entitled to particpate, as is anyone. I hope you'll reconsider after the deep-breathing & counting-to-10 thing, and come back better for the experience. If ya wanna do deep stuff, maybe use my 'PM' box??? Warm regards, Roger

Of course Scratch can post. He can say anything he want's on this thread. I just won't be here anymore. This is a tactic with him and I'm pretty sure its a conscious one. He's done the same thing to Wade and to me on other threads: interpolate an irrelevant point of order (the alleged Naturalistic Fallacy I had allegedly committed) and then dig in his heels, come Hell or high water, and divert the entire thread to a discussion of the usually insignificant (and in this case, irrelevant) quibble.

I hardly think it was "irrelevant," Loran. Towards the end of our discussion, you were backpedaling to the point where you were actually trying to critique Classical Logic and Rhetoric. The stuff that seems "trivial" to you and Wade probably seems that way because it totally unravels your arguments.

Thus, Wade wants to use the dictionary definition of "lie," and yet he wants to overlook part of the definition. Why? Is that really very "insignificant," especially in lieu of the fact that it completely destroys his apologetic argument? Likewise, you want to claim that your views "transcend" logic, and yet you want to reply upon the very philosophical tradition which has its basis in Classical logic. You seem to think it is "insignificant" that your views are "extra-logical," and yet this is exactly the definition-stretching you need to prevent your argument from collapsing.

It really would have been as simply as you conceding (as DCP has done) that your religious beliefs are not logical. I see no shame or harm in doing that. Why should you?

Scratch is a polemicist with the mind of a political activist, not a serious thinker with the mind and temperment of a philosopher.

I have never claimed to be a "philosopher," however I have claimed that I can hold my own in a debate.

That's clear to every LDS who's debated him. Free speech, as usual, has nothing to do with it. I told him to get off the thread and let serious minds have the floor.

I consider my critique of your views to be quite "serious" indeed.

Of course, I can't impose my will on him nor would I (unlike him), if I could. I could have asked him nicely, of course, but that would only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and bring on another savage blood squirting attack.

You are right: I would have interpreted it as "weakness" or defeat, just as I interpret you tucking tail on this thread as "defeat and weakness". How else am I supposed to interpret your behavior?

In fact, OK, I'm going to start this entire thing over again in the Celestial Room. Anyone desiring an exploration of the issues involved in this thread in a serious, measured, philosophical manner please come on over. We'll try this just one more time.

Why can't you simply address my critique? Why is that so difficult for you?

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
Hi Loran, don't let Scratch get to ya, Bro! I'm still here :-) Actually, i composed THE post of the thread, the other night. But, as you know things weren't up to par on site...so i lost it to cyber-space. And, Scratch had nothing to do with it. Or, did he??? ;-) Anyone who knows IF retrieval is possible & knows how to do it, PLEASE teach me.

Loran, i am sorry that you take such umbrage from your exchanges with Mr. S. After all it is a public forum, open to all & Scratch is entitled to particpate, as is anyone. I hope you'll reconsider after the deep-breathing & counting-to-10 thing, and come back better for the experience. If ya wanna do deep stuff, maybe use my 'PM' box??? Warm regards, Roger


Of course Scratch can post. He can say anything he want's on this thread. I just won't be here anymore. This is a tactic with him and I'm pretty sure its a conscious one. He's done the same thing to Wade and to me on other threads: interpolate an irrelevant point of order (the alleged Naturalistic Fallacy I had allegedly committed) and then dig in his heels, come Hell or high water, and divert the entire thread to a discussion of the usually insignificant (and in this case, irrelevant) quibble.

Thus, Wade wants to use the dictionary definition of "lie," and yet he wants to overlook part of the definition.

Yes, because all of them were not (nor obviously could they be) pertinant to the argument he was trying to develop. The fact that you would not allow him the specific definitions of the term he was using to develop that arguement, but insisted that he use the specific definition of your choice, derailed and wrecked the entire thread, which, since in reality, you can not only not hold your own with Wade in the arena of ideas on any subject related to the Gospel, (and most probably a number of others), but you approach most of your debates already out of ammunition before the first shot has ever been fired. Hence, your debating style becomes primarily a matter of rhetorical tacitics, not philosophical substance.

Quote:
That's clear to every LDS who's debated him. Free speech, as usual, has nothing to do with it. I told him to get off the thread and let serious minds have the floor.


I consider my critique of your views to be quite "serious" indeed.

I don't. I consider them to be, for the most part, the blowing of smoke out the proverbial backside.

Quote:
Of course, I can't impose my will on him nor would I (unlike him), if I could. I could have asked him nicely, of course, but that would only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and bring on another savage blood squirting attack.


You are right: I would have interpreted it as "weakness" or defeat, just as I interpret you tucking tail on this thread as "defeat and weakness". How else am I supposed to interpret your behavior?

I rest my case. Atilla The Scratch has spoken like a true warrior.

[_Mister Scratch]

Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
Hi Loran, don't let Scratch get to ya, Bro! I'm still here :-) Actually, i composed THE post of the thread, the other night. But, as you know things weren't up to par on site...so i lost it to cyber-space. And, Scratch had nothing to do with it. Or, did he??? ;-) Anyone who knows IF retrieval is possible & knows how to do it, PLEASE teach me.

Loran, i am sorry that you take such umbrage from your exchanges with Mr. S. After all it is a public forum, open to all & Scratch is entitled to particpate, as is anyone. I hope you'll reconsider after the deep-breathing & counting-to-10 thing, and come back better for the experience. If ya wanna do deep stuff, maybe use my 'PM' box??? Warm regards, Roger


Of course Scratch can post. He can say anything he want's on this thread. I just won't be here anymore. This is a tactic with him and I'm pretty sure its a conscious one. He's done the same thing to Wade and to me on other threads: interpolate an irrelevant point of order (the alleged Naturalistic Fallacy I had allegedly committed) and then dig in his heels, come Hell or high water, and divert the entire thread to a discussion of the usually insignificant (and in this case, irrelevant) quibble.

Thus, Wade wants to use the dictionary definition of "lie," and yet he wants to overlook part of the definition.

Yes, because all of them were not (nor obviously could they be) pertinant to the argument he was trying to develop.

Neither you, nor he, nor anyone else has ever offered up a cogent explanation as to how the full range of definitions was "not pertinent."

The fact that you would not allow him the specific definitions of the term he was using to develop that arguement, but insisted that he use the specific definition of your choice,

It was not "my" choice. It was the "choice" of the author(s) of the dictionary. Your remarks here remind me of your argument in *this* thread, where you tried to say that *I* was somehow inventing stuff that has been around since the days of Socrates and Callicles.

derailed and wrecked the entire thread, which, since in reality, you can not only not hold your own with Wade in the arena of ideas on any subject related to the Gospel, (and most probably a number of others), but you approach most of your debates already out of ammunition before the first shot has ever been fired. Hence, your debating style becomes primarily a matter of rhetorical tacitics, not philosophical substance.

For this to be true, you would have to do away with the entire field of semantics. Face it Loran: we must use words to express what we mean. If you think discussing definitions is somehow "not philosophically substantive," then I suggest you spend sometime boning up on the Poststructuralist theorists. You can start by reading Derrida's "White Mythology." Words have real power, as evidence by the fact that a simple calling attention to the full definition of "lie" completely destroyed Wade's argument.

:
That's clear to every LDS who's debated him. Free speech, as usual, has nothing to do with it. I told him to get off the thread and let serious minds have the floor.


I consider my critique of your views to be quite "serious" indeed.

I don't. I consider them to be, for the most part, the blowing of smoke out the proverbial backside.

You obviously consider them serious enough to get all bent out of shape and angry over.

:
Of course, I can't impose my will on him nor would I (unlike him), if I could. I could have asked him nicely, of course, but that would only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and bring on another savage blood squirting attack.


You are right: I would have interpreted it as "weakness" or defeat, just as I interpret you tucking tail on this thread as "defeat and weakness". How else am I supposed to interpret your behavior?

I rest my case. Atilla The Scratch has spoken like a true warrior.

And a victorious one at that.

[_Coggins7]

Neither you, nor he, nor anyone else has ever offered up a cogent explanation as to how the full range of definitions was "not pertinent."

Yes we did, repeatedly, and you never produced cogent arguments as to why those explanations weren't adaquate, you just didn't want to hear them because your agenda for the debate--its effective diversion into a deep canyon--would have then been threatened.

Quote:
derailed and wrecked the entire thread, which, since in reality, you can not only not hold your own with Wade in the arena of ideas on any subject related to the Gospel, (and most probably a number of others), but you approach most of your debates already out of ammunition before the first shot has ever been fired. Hence, your debating style becomes primarily a matter of rhetorical tacitics, not philosophical substance.

For this to be true, you would have to do away with the entire field of semantics. Face it Loran: we must use words to express what we mean. If you think discussing definitions is somehow "not philosophically substantive," then I suggest you spend sometime boning up on the Poststructuralist theorists. You can start by reading Derrida's "White Mythology." Words have real power, as evidence by the fact that a simple calling attention to the full definition of "lie" completely destroyed Wade's argument.

Derrida. Uh huh. Now I'm beginning to see in a much clearer way what's happened to your mind.

Quote:
Quote:
:
That's clear to every LDS who's debated him. Free speech, as usual, has nothing to do with it. I told him to get off the thread and let serious minds have the floor.

I consider my critique of your views to be quite "serious" indeed.



:

Of course, I can't impose my will on him nor would I (unlike him), if I could. I could have asked him nicely, of course, but that would only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and bring on another savage blood squirting attack.


You are right: I would have interpreted it as "weakness" or defeat, just as I interpret you tucking tail on this thread as "defeat and weakness". How else am I supposed to interpret your behavior?



I rest my case. Atilla The Scratch has spoken like a true warrior.


And a victorious one at that.

Move on, nothing to see here.

[_Mister Scratch]

Neither you, nor he, nor anyone else has ever offered up a cogent explanation as to how the full range of definitions was "not pertinent."

Yes we did, repeatedly, and you never produced cogent arguments as to why those explanations weren't adaquate, you just didn't want to hear them because your agenda for the debate--its effective diversion into a deep canyon--would have then been threatened.

As I recall, your best argument was, "We want to ignore that part of the definition." Hardly "adaquate" in my opinion.

:
derailed and wrecked the entire thread, which, since in reality, you can not only not hold your own with Wade in the arena of ideas on any subject related to the Gospel, (and most probably a number of others), but you approach most of your debates already out of ammunition before the first shot has ever been fired. Hence, your debating style becomes primarily a matter of rhetorical tacitics, not philosophical substance.

For this to be true, you would have to do away with the entire field of semantics. Face it Loran: we must use words to express what we mean. If you think discussing definitions is somehow "not philosophically substantive," then I suggest you spend sometime boning up on the Poststructuralist theorists. You can start by reading Derrida's "White Mythology." Words have real power, as evidence by the fact that a simple calling attention to the full definition of "lie" completely destroyed Wade's argument.

Derrida. Uh huh. Now I'm beginning to see in a much clearer way what's happened to your mind.

Or Foucault. Or Barthes. Or Saussure. Or Levi-Strauss, or any other number of linguistics theorists and philosophers.

I have noticed that you tend never to refer to any authorities or texts.... I wonder why that is?

Quote:
Quote:
:
That's clear to every LDS who's debated him. Free speech, as usual, has nothing to do with it. I told him to get off the thread and let serious minds have the floor.

I consider my critique of your views to be quite "serious" indeed.
:

Of course, I can't impose my will on him nor would I (unlike him), if I could. I could have asked him nicely, of course, but that would only be interpreted as a sign of weakness and bring on another savage blood squirting attack.
You are right: I would have interpreted it as "weakness" or defeat, just as I interpret you tucking tail on this thread as "defeat and weakness". How else am I supposed to interpret your behavior?
I rest my case. Atilla The Scratch has spoken like a true warrior.


And a victorious one at that.

Move on, nothing to see here.

Then why do you keep responding?