Gadianton wrote:Critics definitely launch personal attacks, neither side is innocent. The difference is that only the apologists have institutionalized means of conducting these operations, think about L-skinny, shields, the review, and even mad. At one time, dunamis I believe admitted that critics were only allowed there on a short least and mainly for the entertainment of the apologists, to be used up and disposed of.
I disrespectfully disagree. A critic created this board and since it's creation I've seen more personal attacks here then all of the rest of the things you've listed combined.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:I disrespectfully disagree. A critic created this board and since it's creation I've seen more personal attacks here then all of the rest of the things you've listed combined.
It's so hard to ignore the pompous.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
It is difficult to criticize the Church without being involved in some lie or yellow journalism. So I think anyone who takes pages from antiMormon coloring books should be excoriated at every opportunity. But still the criticism should be met with an answer as well. It's not difficult to point out where the lie or the hypocrisy is in criticisms of the Church.
I had a boss that told his employees if you are going to criticize something about the company and it's policies, make sure you have some sort of solution in mind first.
And be sure there is something that actually needs a solution first.
From my limited personal experience, the LDS at MADB, particularly selek and jwhitlock, are aware of no other debate tactic besides personal attacks.
I posted on a thread supporting the church, for the most part, and they jumped all over me. selek offered line by line personal attack of my post while completely missing my point.
From what I have seen, this kind of behavior is tolerated at MADB for any proLDS with a certain number of posts but completely censor "antis" especially in regards to certain subjects; even some subjects that are legitimate areas of concern.
Long story short.... shooting the messenger is very popular over there.
emilysmith wrote:From what I have seen, this kind of behavior is tolerated at MADB for any proLDS with a certain number of posts but completely censor "antis" especially in regards to certain subjects; even some subjects that are legitimate areas of concern.
Long story short.... shooting the messenger is very popular over there.
I particularly got a kick out of this little tidbit left by a MADB Mod to your response on a closed thread over there -
"This thread is getting heated. But the first to be shown the door are posters who waste everybody's time by preaching on how to be good Christians."
Yes.....lets tolerate and allow the un-Christian-like posters and responses but make sure the posters who call them on it and define how a good Christian should act are ejected first. BRILLIANT!!!
Idiots.
Red flags look normal when you're wearing rose colored glasses.
Jonah wrote: "This thread is getting heated. But the first to be shown the door are posters who waste everybody's time by preaching on how to be good Christians."
Yes.....lets tolerate and allow the un-Christian-like posters and responses but make sure the posters who call them on it and define how a good Christian should act are ejected first. BRILLIANT!!!
Idiots.
The moral of the story is... the residents of MAD don't like to be told to live their religion. No one is supposed to actually point out their lack thereof... it's kinda like playing the Emperor's New Clothes.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:The moral of the story is... the residents of MAD don't like to be told to live their religion. No one is supposed to actually point out their lack thereof... it's kinda like playing the Emperor's New Clothes.
As someone who does not live the religion you publicly adhere to I would have thought you would be more sensitive.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:As someone who does not live the religion you publicly adhere to I would have thought you would be more sensitive.
The difference is: I don't claim to. I lay no claim to being kind, loving, charitable, long suffering, or by inference, a meek Mormon woman. I also don't run a site that makes fun of members who struggle. Just that alone puts me across the line from the Wench at MAD.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
The Nehor wrote:A critic created this board and since it's creation I've seen more personal attacks here then all of the rest of the things you've listed combined
That's like saying, "The guy next door is a low life because he hosts parties where his unruly neighbor finds joy in verbally abusing the ladies who attend. Just yesterday, I went over there and called his wife a whore."
Case in point:
The Nehor wrote:As someone who does not live the religion you publicly adhere to I would have thought you would be more sensitive.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.