Thanks, Plutarch, for the explanations but please explain some more:
Plutarch wrote:I don't impose any preconditions upon Bachman at all, except that he limit the length of individual posts and that he not require me to defend Christianity in general (miracles, the resurrection; only because much more capable folks than Bachman or I have done so).
You say "I don't impose any preconditions upon Bachman at all, except...". Now I'm sure you're a Master debater and all, but doesn't your "except" create a non sequitur? How can you state that you "don't impose any preconditions" and then impose them?
I'm not sure you have the mental abilities to write a sentence, not to mention "...demonstrate to the readers of this board to fallacies and absurdities..." blah-blah-blah -- so you resort to name calling because you have two rather silly requirements before you can start the dialog.
Plutarch wrote:And, so, I resort to name-calling with the hope that he'll rise to the challenge with that.
How very superior of you. You only call him names for the higher moral purpose that he'll rise to the challenge so you can defend your mythologies like a good robot?
How noble of you, oh wise Plutarch!
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
In this case, debate is offered to demonstrate to the readers of this board to fallacies and absurdities of some of the more populist anti-Mormon ex-Mormon views rampant on RFM where I am not allowed to post.
Perhaps such a thing can be accomplished, as long as while you are offering what you consider the fallacies and absurdities of some of the populist anti-Mormon ex-Mormon arguments you feel Tal holds, Tal gets to demonstrate the fallacies and absurdities of the Mormon views you hold. In other words, both sides get to take equal shots at each other (unlike our unfair FAIR board).
This may be the only place on the 'net where such a discussion could actually take place.
I still think the whole thing will result in a long thread where the two people involved are simply talking past each other and not actually engaging each other's arguments at all. Why? Because either one or both will refuse to concede a point that the other scores. And it's a given that both sides will score points.
In this case, debate is offered to demonstrate to the readers of this board to fallacies and absurdities of some of the more populist anti-Mormon ex-Mormon views rampant on RFM where I am not allowed to post.
Perhaps such a thing can be accomplished, as long as while you are offering what you consider the fallacies and absurdities of some of the populist anti-Mormon ex-Mormon arguments you feel Tal holds, Tal gets to demonstrate the fallacies and absurdities of the Mormon views you hold. In other words, both sides get to take equal shots at each other (unlike our unfair FAIR board).
This may be the only place on the 'net where such a discussion could actually take place.
I still think the whole thing will result in a long thread where the two people involved are simply talking past each other and not actually engaging each other's arguments at all. Why? Because either one or both will refuse to concede a point that the other scores. And it's a given that both sides will score points.
Like I say, I impose no preconditions as to what one wants to say or not.
Have fun on your trip; if in Los Angeles a Honda Interceptor 800 passes you at 120 mph, or my other Suzuki Katana, that might be me.
MormonMendacity wrote:You say "I don't impose any preconditions upon Bachman at all, except...". Now I'm sure you're a Master debater and all, but doesn't your "except" create a non sequitur? How can you state that you "don't impose any preconditions" and then impose them?
OK. You nailed me. If he wants to force me to defend Christianity, and he wants to wail on me with 2000 word posts, so be it. I just made the proposal to keep the posts readable and consistent with the theme of this board.
Plutarch wrote:On any topic relating to the Latter-day Saint experience. Two ground rules.
(1) I do not wish to have to defend Christianity at the same time. For example, I think it a complete waste of time to have to defend miracles in general.
(2) Each post has to be limited to an agreed-upon number of words; otherwise, the post can be ignored.
Bob:
I realize I'm a poor substitute for Tal or McCue, but I'd be happy to debate you under the aforementioned conditions.
Rollo
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Plutarch wrote:On any topic relating to the Latter-day Saint experience. Two ground rules.
(1) I do not wish to have to defend Christianity at the same time. For example, I think it a complete waste of time to have to defend miracles in general.
(2) Each post has to be limited to an agreed-upon number of words; otherwise, the post can be ignored.
Bob:
I realize I'm a poor substitute for Tal or McCue, but I'd be happy to debate you under the aforementioned conditions.
Rollo
That would be wonderful! However, you pretend to be a believer, and I'd like to do what I can't do on RFM against an ex-M non-believer. But, as soon as it becomes apparent that Bachman is sufficiently cowed by my manly chestbeating, pick a topic and let's get started.
Plutarch wrote:That would be wonderful! However, you pretend to be a believer, and I'd like to do what I can't do on RFM against an ex-M non-believer. But, as soon as it becomes apparent that Bachman is sufficiently cowed by my manly chestbeating, pick a topic and let's get started.
As you wish, but I am a questioning and doubting believer. Should you ever choose to debate me, I defer to you to pick the topic.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Plutarch, would you like to know the truth? I've kind of danced around it since I don't like the rancour that "the true followers of Christ" seem to be so addicted to and I haven't wanted to sound like them. But, perhaps I might be doing you a favour by risking impoliteness to be more frank.
You write that the purpose of a debate isn't to convince the other debater of something, but rather, it is for the benefit of observers. But if that is the point of debate, I suggest that no debate between you and anyone is necessary, since you have already done an excellent job of making yourself look very foolish on here, and by extension, the cause you wish to defend. Quick example: keeping in mind your assertions on this thread that I was falsely claiming that you seemed to have no conception that Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour might have struck his contemporaries as atrocious, here is a quote from you, from the "presentism" thread:
"In Joseph Smith's day, it wasn't illegal to marry a 14-year-old. Under the reasoning you advance that lex loci defines morality, then couldn't I say that there is no moral proscription against marrying a 14-year-old?....I don't buy the notion that it is a shocking concept that a man in his 20s would marry a 14-year-old in the early 19th century. Nobody seemed shocked with this concept in Dostoevsky's Adolescent, a late 19th century work."
Is that enough? No, it is not enough for you, Plutarch. No doubt you see nothing foolish about this at all - not even that you demonstrated ignorance of how shocking Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour was to his contemporaries, only days before denying that you'd ever said such a thing - and all this, on the very same bulletin board!
Another indication of foolishness is your attribution to me of a completely stupid argument that I don't believe I have ever made, at any time of my life: the argument that law defines, or should define, morality. Indeed, the source of morality, and its possible relation to civil law, was not mentioned in either my original RFM essay, nor my post here, nor is it material to the question of "presentism" (which, I may have to remind you, you mentioned on the other thread, that you had "never heard of" before!). You also believe mistakenly that Joseph married a fourteen year old when he was in his twenties. In fact, Joseph Smith was born in December of 1805, making him 37 at the time of his "marriage" to 14 year old Helen Kimball. And to top it all off, you claim to own "Mormon Enigma", the biography of Emma Hale Smith. Have you read it? If you have, and yet could still be so confused and unaware, this again doesn't speak well either of your memory or cognitive faculties, further making the prospect of a "debate" with you look totally ridiculous. But if you have not read it, may I suggest you do so, so you don't continue to make yourself look so foolish?
And Plutarch - I've only focused here on four sentences from you here. Four sentences. Yet, that was all you needed to demonstrate something which, I dislike to say, resembles something like a combination of short-term memory loss, compulsive projection, and cognitive incapacity. Even you yourself have commented on how difficult to understand you find my posts. Well, we needed no advisement of that - you make it all too plain via your responses. I have no doubt you can barely understand this very one. Indeed, I am not even sure as I type this that you aren't just a prankster, imitating the worst stereotype of an online church defender.
I might say that everyone says foolish things sometimes. Certainly I do. And were it only those four sentences, we could write it off - but in nearly every communication you've put on this board, you only further make the case that taking the time to properly debate you would probably make me look just as foolish as you've already made yourself look. I encourage those following this to read through your posts not just on this thread, but on the "presentism" thread I started, to judge whether I'm wrong or not.
You can attribute this to cowardice if you'd like. I attribute it rather to not wishing to look stupid, or totally wasting my time - which I suppose I'm doing even at this very moment, typing out this post to someone who I can already predict, with (I think) 100% accuracy, will have nothing intelligent to say in response.
Aren't there any other guys out there who want to engage? Pahoran, what have you decided about an interview? Anyone else interested?
Last edited by NorthboundZax on Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tal Bachman wrote:You can attribute this to cowardice if you'd like. I attribute it rather to not wishing to look stupid, or totally wasting my time - which I suppose I'm doing even at this very moment, typing out this post to someone who I can already predict, with (I think) 100% accuracy, will have nothing intelligent to say in response.
Aren't there any other guys out there who want to engage? Pahoran, what have you decided about an interview? Anyone else interested?[/color]
OK. I think that is a "no" based upon my lack of qualifications (although I am not quite sure -- lots of words) which I told you was an acceptable declination in my view.