I hate lazy research!

[_bcspace]

So do I. All antiLDS critics are guilty of it without exception.

What evidence can you provide for this claim?

Any debate involving an antiLDS critic.

Ah, so mere assertion then, no actual evidence.

You just gave yet another example by separating the evidence so that you wouldn't have to address it in that context. You are skilled in yellow journalism I see. Perhaps not an actual journalist, but one who has read too much yellow....

Yours is a good example......

Great, walk me through it please

Yet another separation. It shows that you really have no answer.

Because withholding the priesthood from blacks is not "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

I'm amazed you can say that with a straight face.

I'm not suprised you couldn't point out any errors in the simple dictionary definition. I'm afraid the batteries in your lightsaber weren't duracell......ray-o-vac? lol

[_Fortigurn]

You just gave yet another example by separating the evidence so that you wouldn't have to address it in that context. You are skilled in yellow journalism I see. Perhaps not an actual journalist, but one who has read too much yellow....

I didn't separate the evidence. You didn't provide any. All you gave was a circular answer.

Yet another separation. It shows that you really have no answer.

You haven't given me any evidence to answer. All you did was make a claim. You even presented an alleged specific example of evidence for your case. Yet when invited to demonstrate how it proves your case, you backed away. Why? Are you in fact unable to find any examples of 'lazy research' in my debate?

I'm not suprised you couldn't point out any errors in the simple dictionary definition.

The definition wasn't in error. Your denial that it was applicable was in error.

[_bcspace]

You just gave yet another example by separating the evidence so that you wouldn't have to address it in that context. You are skilled in yellow journalism I see. Perhaps not an actual journalist, but one who has read too much yellow....

I didn't separate the evidence. You didn't provide any. All you gave was a circular answer.

No. I provided you with an actual statement as an example. It was an example of lazy research because the definition of bigotry was not referenced. If it had, then one could easily see that bigotry does not apply here.

Yet another separation. It shows that you really have no answer.

You haven't given me any evidence to answer. All you did was make a claim. You even presented an alleged specific example of evidence for your case. Yet when invited to demonstrate how it proves your case, you backed away.

Actually, I made it easy for you. I did indeed give the one example. All you have to do is provide a counter example to make headway against my case. I wonder why you are unable to do so?

I'm not suprised you couldn't point out any errors in the simple dictionary definition.

The definition wasn't in error. Your denial that it was applicable was in error.

Then it should be easy to show it's applicability since the definition is before. An easy chance for you to make headway against my point about all antiLDS critics. Yet all you have is something to the effect of "I don't believe" and "How can you say that with a straight face?"

I take that scholarship and debate are not your strengths?

[_Fortigurn]

No. I provided you with an actual statement as an example. It was an example of lazy research because the definition of bigotry was not referenced. If it had, then one could easily see that bigotry does not apply here.

But it does apply.

Actually, I made it easy for you. I did indeed give the one example.

Not yet you haven't. And you need more than one example to prove a universal principle.

Then it should be easy to show it's applicability since the definition is before.

I would have thought it was self-evident. The priesthood ban was a refusal to accept the belief that black men were equal in every way to white men, and therefore entitled to the priesthood. It was a stubborn and complete intolerance of every creed, belief, or opinion which held that they were so entitled.

Why haven't you actually responded to my argument yet?

[_bcspace]

Not yet you haven't. And you need more than one example to prove a universal principle.

Only one example is required to disprove it which is much less tedious than going through all examples. However, I gavce you one example, now it's your turn. You have an opportunity in the definition of bigotry as your claim (I can only assume you do so claim) is that withholding the priesthod to blacks is bigotry. Now you have the definition before you. Take your best shot.....lol

The priesthood ban was a refusal to accept the belief that black men were equal in every way to white men, and therefore entitled to the priesthood. It was a stubborn and complete intolerance of every creed, belief, or opinion which held that they were so entitled.

And your proof is?

Why haven't you actually responded to my argument yet?

Because you hadn't actually made one until now.

[_Fortigurn]

Not yet you haven't. And you need more than one example to prove a universal principle.

Only one example is required to disprove it which is much less tedious than going through all examples.

I agree. I will give you:

* The Meso-America debate on MAD: In which beastie was so well informed, in contrast to those against whom she was arguing, and in which Mormon apologists would quote a statement from a scholar which said the opposite of their argument, and claimed it supported it

* The 'River Laman' debate on MAD: In which Zakuska notably misread a dictionary and provided the meaning of the noun 'one who rives', claiming that he was providing the meaning of the noun 'river'

* The Mountain Meadows Massacre debate on MAD: In which Pahoran shot himself in the foot, and rcrocket in the back, by grandiosely claiming that he had disproved all seven points in my argument, unaware that rcrocket had actually agreed with four of them (because Pahoran simply wasn't reading the posts)

Shall I continue?

And your proof is?

My proof is that there existed creeds, beliefs, and opinion which held that they were so entitled, and the LDS church was intolerant of these. The RLDS church, for example, had a far more enlightened position, but that position was not tolerated by the LDS church.

Because you hadn't actually made one until now.

Oh, but I had.

[_bcspace]

Only one example is required to disprove it which is much less tedious than going through all examples.

I agree. I will give you:

* The Meso-America debate on MAD: In which beastie was so well informed, in contrast to those against whom she was arguing, and in which Mormon apologists would quote a statement from a scholar which said the opposite of their argument, and claimed it supported it

* The 'River Laman' debate on MAD: In which Zakuska notably misread a dictionary and provided the meaning of the noun 'one who rives', claiming that he was providing the meaning of the noun 'river'

* The Mountain Meadows Massacre debate on MAD: In which Pahoran shot himself in the foot, and rcrocket in the back, by grandiosely claiming that he had disproved all seven points in my argument, unaware that rcrocket had actually agreed with four of them (because Pahoran simply wasn't reading the posts)

Shall I continue?

You'll have to because you didn't address the claim at all which was that all antiLDS critics are guilty of lazy research. You only provided claims, as opposed to actual referential examples, where an LDS person might have been guilty of such.

My proof is that there existed creeds, beliefs, and opinion which held that they were so entitled, and the LDS church was intolerant of these. The RLDS church, for example, had a far more enlightened position, but that position was not tolerated by the LDS church.

Claims are not proof. Examples of beliefs or opinion, should you ever give them, are not proof as they don't apply to the Church.

Because you hadn't actually made one until now.

Oh, but I had.

You've already retreated from the claim that withholding the priesthood is an example of bigotry to now claiming that...."The priesthood ban was a refusal to accept the belief that black men were equal in every way to white men, and therefore entitled to the priesthood. It was a stubborn and complete intolerance of every creed, belief, or opinion which held that they were so entitled."

You had to back-step because you realized that the original claim was not true.

[_Fortigurn]

You'll have to because you didn't address the claim at all which was that all antiLDS critics are guilty of lazy research.

I certainly did. I gave specific examples of LDS critics who engaged in debate using sound research (not lazy research), debates in which the Mormon apologists were in fact the ones guilty of lazy research.

You only provided claims, as opposed to actual referential examples, where an LDS person might have been guilty of such.

I gave very specific examples, even down to specific names.

Claims are not proof.

Are you actually ignorant of the fact that other churches (including the LDS church), felt that black men were entitled? Do you want me to provide quotes as proof?

Examples of beliefs or opinion, should you ever give them, are not proof as they don't apply to the Church.

Ah, so now you say that even if I do give quotes as proof, they won't actually qualify as proof because they 'don't apply to the Church'. How would they not apply to the Church?

You've already retreated from the claim that withholding the priesthood is an example of bigotry...

No I haven't. The statement you quote from me explicitly declares that the ban was an example of bigotry, using the very definition of the word.

[_bcspace]

You'll have to because you didn't address the claim at all which was that all antiLDS critics are guilty of lazy research.

I certainly did. I gave specific examples of LDS critics who engaged in debate using sound research (not lazy research), debates in which the Mormon apologists were in fact the ones guilty of lazy research.

You claimed there are such examples. But you are going down the wrong track. How does examples of LDS using lazy research prove that an antiLDS critic is not?

Claims are not proof.

Are you actually ignorant of the fact that other churches (including the LDS church), felt that black men were entitled? Do you want me to provide quotes as proof?

Claims still are not proof.

Examples of beliefs or opinion, should you ever give them, are not proof as they don't apply to the Church.

Ah, so now you say that even if I do give quotes as proof, they won't actually qualify as proof because they 'don't apply to the Church'. How would they not apply to the Church?

The priesthood ban was a Church-wide policy, not limited to a few wards or stakes or the opinions of individuals. Therefore you will have to come up with Church statements as the reason of the ban in order to show what you claim.

You've already retreated from the claim that withholding the priesthood is an example of bigotry...

No I haven't. The statement you quote from me explicitly declares that the ban was an example of bigotry, using the very definition of the word.

Or so you claim.....(Hint: It was implicit) But you added an unproven caveat. You had to backtrack and apply conditions to the original claim.

[_Fortigurn]

You claimed there are such examples. But you are going down the wrong track. How does examples of LDS using lazy research prove that an antiLDS critic is not?

Please read my post. I provided both positive evidence for my argument. The positive evidence constitutes a number of debates in which critics conducted non-lazy research.

Claims still are not proof.

I agree, which is why I have offered you hard evidence (quotes).

The priesthood ban was a Church-wide policy, not limited to a few wards or stakes or the opinions of individuals. Therefore you will have to come up with Church statements as the reason of the ban in order to show what you claim.

I'm sorry, but how does this address the issue?

Or so you claim.....(Hint: It was implicit) But you added an unproven caveat. You had to backtrack and apply conditions to the original claim.

I haven't added anything, and nor have I backtracked. I've even offered you evidence, but you claim no evidence would be relevant.