Paradigms for Apologists

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I understand. I'm sure you'll find arguing on the MAD board far more rewarding, since the atmosphere there is far more conducive to Mopologetic victories. You'll be less tempted to reveal your true colors.

True colors, etc. Are you capable of having any discussion without trying to make it personal? Because as far as conversations with me, you aren't. That being said, we all have "true colors," which in your view seems to be any time we don't act on our best behavior. Some may be more capable of seeing their own than others.

Actually the sport popped into my head.

Oh, I'm sure it did. And with good reason.

In retrospect it was an interesting first example, to be sure. I almost wrote "football" but thought "too conventional" so went with rugby. Football is also a high-contact sport, though. I play neither. I play basketball and racquetball. But yes, an unfortunate first example, especially given your view of me as an argumentative brute.

You can psychoanalyze it, as is your general wont, but as my further examples show (swimming, historians, etc.) there was nothing particularly purposeful about the rugby comparison. Sometimes it is apt. In that way I have become less and less interested in rugby-like discussion.

Now you're retreating from your original position. Wasn't it you who was murmuring about "moving goal posts" just yesterday? Or is this a confession on your part that you exist--as do many Mopologists, I dare say--to engage in "attack dog," bashing behavior? Let us read on:

I think it was just an example. Nothing was meant by it. However, in discussions I can become too engaged and aggressive at times, it is true, so the comparison is ironic.

That doesn't answer the question at all. Not by a long shot. Here it is again: Do you engage in messageboard polemics to improve your life as a Latter-day, or your "skills" as a Mopologist?

No. I engage in message board discussions as part of my overall interest in religion. I have found a lot of good references, met good friends, been advised to read great books (Gad, for example, got me to finally finish Kuhn, for example) better understood my point, argued against people I felt were wrong, helped people find information they wouldn't have found otherwise, seen other viewpoints, argued for and against other viewpoints, etc. and etc.

Why do you engage in messageboard polemics?

[_Lamanite]

LOAP said something very interesting when discussing why he participates in Apologetics. If he doesn't mind me taking some liberties, it reminded me of something Armand Mauss wrote-- and is a reflection of my position only.

"As much as anything, [Apologetics] is an effort to help me understand my own changing relationship to the Mormon institutions and people. Perhaps it will thus have special meaning to others who have experienced similar migrations to the margins, but I hope it will enhance the understanding of everyone..."

I'm actually moving away from the margins but it makes the point.

I will often use these boards as a means to vet out troublesome issues I have with the institution of the Church and its history. Both Mormon and non-Mormons provide me with information in the affirmative and in the negative. I take this information and research, study, and pray in an effort to find resolution.

However, I find that as time passes, issues seem to fade into the background of my Christianity; and it feels pretty good.

I rarely play the role of the "defender of the faith". Mostly because I find it fruitless. It seems no one, including myself at times, wants to have adult meaningful discussions without the inflammatory personal remarks.

LOAP's taken and given over the past week on this board. And for what? Honestly, what has been gained or lost, except calloused hearts and lost time.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_Gadianton]

"As much as anything, [Apologetics] is an effort to help me understand my own changing relationship to the Mormon institutions and people. Perhaps it will thus have special meaning to others who have experienced similar migrations to the margins, but I hope it will enhance the understanding of everyone..."

thank you for pointing this out, Lamanite. I find that admitting apologetics involves a "changing relationship" to the Mormon "institutions" and a "migration" to the "margins" of what is Mormonism basically describes the "paradigm shift" (lol) from Chapel Mormon to Internet Mormon.

[_Lamanite]

"As much as anything, [Apologetics] is an effort to help me understand my own changing relationship to the Mormon institutions and people. Perhaps it will thus have special meaning to others who have experienced similar migrations to the margins, but I hope it will enhance the understanding of everyone..."

thank you for pointing this out, Lamanite. I find that admitting apologetics involves a "changing relationship" to the Mormon "institutions" and a "migration" to the "margins" of what is Mormonism basically describes the "paradigm shift" (lol) from Chapel Mormon to Internet Mormon.

First, you could have said that without the "lol". Second, I said I was migrating away from the margins, but I liked the way Mauss said it, so I left it in the original form.

Absent those two items we probably could have had a discussion about both mine and your relationship with Mormonism's institutions, doctrines, and policies.

Maybe we could have learned from each other? Now all we have is.... well, we ain't got crap.

Lamanite

[_Gadianton]

First, you could have said that without the "lol".

I had to put the "lol" there to make sure everyone knew I was making fun of apologist talk. After all, this thread you are hijacking into another Mauss thread is about the hilarious way in which apologists talk about "paradigm shifts".

Absent those two items we probably could have had a discussion about both mine and your relationship with Mormonism's institutions, doctrines, and policies.

Why would I want to derail my own thread by that? this thread is not for discussing our experiences with Mormon institutions.

Second, I said I was migrating away from the margins

On another thread, if you get around to discussing your journy from Internet Mormonism back into the Chapel, I would find that interesting.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

"As much as anything, [Apologetics] is an effort to help me understand my own changing relationship to the Mormon institutions and people. Perhaps it will thus have special meaning to others who have experienced similar migrations to the margins, but I hope it will enhance the understanding of everyone..."

thank you for pointing this out, Lamanite. I find that admitting apologetics involves a "changing relationship" to the Mormon "institutions" and a "migration" to the "margins" of what is Mormonism basically describes the "paradigm shift" (lol) from Chapel Mormon to Internet Mormon.

"lol" indeed.

[_Lamanite]

Sorry about the derail. You have my apologies. Good luck in the New Year.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

First, you could have said that without the "lol".

I had to put the "lol" there to make sure everyone knew I was making fun of apologist talk. After all, this thread you are hijacking into another Mauss thread is about the hilarious way in which apologists talk about "paradigm shifts".

Hilarious? If you're going to treat me with contempt I see no reason to discuss the issue further with you. You have failed to demonstrate how "hilarious" it is. You have posted a few quotes and tried to throw all "apologists" into the same boat you think is sinking. It is you who have misunderstood what "apologists" do with Kuhn. It is you who believes that paradigm changes occur only among large scientific groups. The problem is in your (how ironic!) paradigm.

Lamanite: I appreciate your interjection. It reminded me how fruitful my discussion with Gad really is. "Hilarious!"

[_Gadianton]

Hilarious? If you're going to treat me with contempt

How am I treating you with contempt? My comments directed toward you would will read "LoP".

You have posted a few quotes and tried to throw all "apologists" into the same boat you think is sinking.

That's you misreading. I've shown at least two types of examples, each example containing two sub examples. And it would only be a certain subset of apologists who vouch for a stalemate by oportunistically throwing out a statement on "paradigms" or "kuhn".

It is you who have misunderstood what "apologists" do with Kuhn.

Based on what? The difference between you and I, is that I throw out accusations and then back them up, where as you just make grandiose pronouncements.

It is you who believes that paradigm changes occur only among large scientific groups. The problem is in your (how ironic!) paradigm.

Read the material from Godfrey-Smith and the SEP article I've generously quoted from. They just might understand Kuhn a little bit better than you do.

[_solomarineris]

[quote="Ray A"]Sometimes "paradigm shift" looks like the driver who claims that he was peacfully driving along at the speed limit, when a telegraph pole jumped into the street and hit him.[/quote

I couldn't said it better.
My illustration is little more horrible;
I come home to find my wife in bed with my best friend, I tell him;
"I'ts OK Fred, you can boink Jackie, I just need an attitude change".
(Pardon, Paradigm Change).