Prominent critics who have joined the church

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Prominent critics who have joined the church

Post by Marcus »

wenglund wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:49 am
Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:32 pm

Lol. Last time that website was referenced here was when Markk used it, only to find out that it took the definition of "woman" from Webster’s dictionary, published in 1913.
Hmmm...I just did a search of the page to which I linked, and I found no instances of the word "woman," though 24 instances of the word "female."
My point stands. Get yourself a legitimate scientific education, or even, as Morley suggested, "read a book."
Let's see. You draw a claim allegedly from a past online discussion, which was supposedly made by some other board participant, presumably in response to another board participant, regarding a word that doesn't occur in the web page I linked to, but the definition of which may have appeared elsewhere on the website, and was believed to have been taken from a credible, though older resource for English definitions, and this leaves you to ironically assume that "your point stands," and that you are somehow in a position to lecture others about getting a scientific education?

I have to say, when it comes to self-parody, that was a thing of exquisite beauty. It made my night.

Thanks, Wade Englund
Oh brother. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You really need to get better at this. First of all, searching a single "page" when i was referring to the reputation of that website is just silly, and misses the point entirely.

Also, I gave you the link to the thread through Morley's quote, but it seems beyond you, so i'll walk you through it.

Here's Markk, and the definition of "woman," which you'll note is from the link you said you searched but couldn't find a reference to:
Markk wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 7:06 pm
Morley…

From the dictionary of biology ….

woman
1. An adult female person; a grown-up female person, as distinguished from a man or a child; sometimes, any female person. Women are soft, mild pitiful, and flexible. (Shak) And the rib, which the lord god had taken from man, made he a woman. (gen. Ii. 22) I have observed among all nations that the women ornament themselves more than the men; that, wherever found, they are the same kind, civil, obliging, humane, tender beings, inclined to be gay and cheerful, timorous and modest. (J. Ledyard)
2. The female part of the human race; womankind. Man is destined to be a prey to woman. (Thackeray)
3. A female attendant or servant. By her woman I sent your message. Woman hater, one who hates women; one who has an aversion to the female sex; a misogynist.
1. To act the part of a woman in; with indefinite it.
2. To make effeminate or womanish.
3. To furnish with, or unite to, a woman. To have him see me woman’d.
Origin: OE. Woman, womman, wumman, wimman, wifmon, AS. Wifmann, wimmann; wif woman, wife – mann a man. See Wife, and Man.


https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary
I'll let you use the link to find out about the 1913 reference.

Something you should learn about me, I don't make statements I can't support. Unlike you, who has now embarrassed yourself multiple times today in this respect.

So yes, I will continue to recommend, strongly, that you educate yourself in basic scientific matters.

Oh, and yes, "my point stands." Read a book.
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: Prominent critics who have joined the church

Post by IHAQ »

wenglund wrote:
Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:53 pm
Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:02 pm
Oh boy. You really need to stay away from talking “science.” Or that or get yourself a legitimate scientific education.
How about this: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionar ... production

Thanks, Wade Englund
Great link, but it doesn’t support your point in the way you think it does.
And by sexual, it means reproduction that involves the coming together of genetic material from two parents so as to produce offspring.
It doesn’t say this material needs to come together by means of physical sexual intercourse. Artificial insemination and surrogacy fit the definition you’ve provided. Those processes of “sexual reproduction” are available to same sex couples.
KateFromage
Nursery
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Prominent critics who have joined the church

Post by KateFromage »

wenglund wrote:
Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:07 am
You are demonstrably incorrect. It is no more offensive than correctly defining the following as disorders: dyslexia, webbed toes, anxiety, asthma, cleft pallet, down syndrome, depression, sickle cell anemia, color blindness, and on and on.

I defined it as a disorder, in part, because I disagreed with the psychiatric communities previous diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental illness.

I didn't refer to it as a mental disorder, or a genetic disorder, or a physical disorder. Rather, I correctly defined it as a sexual attraction disorder.

In evolutionary terms, and as opposed to asexual reproduction, sexual attraction between a male and a female is a necessary element in sexual reproduction, and critical to the propagation and survival of the species. This is the evolutionary order of things. By definition, then, sexual attraction between people of the same sex defies the order of things, and may thus rightly be considered a disorder--just as, in principle, the mind is evolutionarily designed to decode properly so as to facilitate reading and learning (this is the order of things), and since dyslexia creates problems with decoding, it is rightly consider a learning or reading disorder.

Again, this is a political issue and in many ways off topic, so I will try again not speak to this irrelevancy any more.

Thanks, Wade Englund
Your blatant disregard of science (let alone anything even nextdoor to truth) as you willy-nilly call diseases and congenital abnormalities "disorders" and, worse, refer to differences in the human condition as mythical "disorders" (because you do not care for them) is galling.

Truthfully, any one of your assertions is enough to inspire a screed that would call you out as a misogynistic, homophobic, narrow-minded, ignorant charlatan, so I limited myself to a very narrow scope in the following commentary.

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (iAPA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized homosexuality and those that viewed it as normal."

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/4/565

You said, "I defined it [homosexuality] as a disorder, in part, because I disagreed with the psychiatric communities previous diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental illness." So your spurious and offensive definition of homosexuality as a "sexual attraction disorder" was inspired, in part, by something that was corrected fifty years ago by the American Psychiatric Association? Perhaps you did not know the DSM-V was now also "woke." And, by the way, using the idea that something is "Woke" as part of an excuse for abandoning your "studies" or anything else is simply churlish and infantile.

Moreover, how, exactly, are you qualified to define a "disorder" in the first place? You seem to think yourself such an authority that you can define terms based on your own fabricated construct. Bear in mind, for instance, the American Psychiatric Association (you can consult the DSM-V) currently defines pedophilia as a pedophilic disorder (and a crime if acted upon), zoophilia as a paraphilic disorder (defined legally as bestiality—a crime—if perpetrated), and necrophilia as a paraphilic disorder (illegal if acted upon). The term "Sexual Attraction Disorder" is mysteriously absent.

I think that those urging you to "read a book" might, perhaps, add that you should do so with the goal of, at the very least, learning that there are so many metaphors in which one can delight that do not rely entirely upon hammering the poor "lock and key" to death.

No Thanks,
Kate
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Prominent critics who have joined the church

Post by drumdude »

I can’t imagine how awful it was growing up in the McConkie years when Mormons like Wade could say these things in public without fear of ridicule and scorn.

I know he looks back on those days with fondness and a longing to return and it makes me more than a little queasy.
Post Reply