Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:40 pm

One thing I'm going to be scratching my head over for a long time is the disparity in extrapolations over the cases of threatening language vs. lying and the relative moral culpability of these respective sins. Threatening language we're assured is usually just "hot air" and almost never should be taken seriously. Those who denounce it are PR freaks with no sense of humor. On the other hand, a "lie" on the scale of deleting a swear word out of a PM would ensure us the next Mark Hoffman. And then there's moral culpability. Threatening language can be mitigated by life circumstances and only taken seriously consequentially, if it didn't lead to physical violence, then the case should be closed. Yet, "lying" somehow rips the very fabric of Celestial moral code independent of all consequences. And if Ray is guilty of so much as altering a PM, that would mark him as a "brazen liar".

Yes, it's absolutely delicious, isn't it?

Just another example of life being stranger than fiction. I mean, really, if someone made this up and tried to peddle it as movie script, it would probably be rejected for being just a bit TOO unrealistic. Surely, in real life, people aren't quite so blatant about their double standards, are they? :O

I also can't help but wonder why DCP keeps coming back to tell us he's not interested in this event. And has no opinion on the matter.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:54 pm

One thing I'm going to be scratching my head over for a long time is the disparity in extrapolations over the cases of threatening language vs. lying and the relative moral culpability of these respective sins. Threatening language we're assured is usually just "hot air" and almost never should be taken seriously.

Not quite. Threatening language is, indeed, usually just "hot air." But not always. I've not said that it "almost never should be taken seriously."

Those who denounce it are PR freaks with no sense of humor.

I haven't said that. Though I do believe that jokes often use language and images that are granted greater latitude because they're humorous than should be granted elsewhere. ("What do you call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff? A tragedy. What do you call it when one of the seats on the bus is empty? A catastrophe." A pretty standard lawyer joke. Horrific, if taken literally. But anybody who took it literally would likely be a fool.)

On the other hand, a "lie" on the scale of deleting a swear word out of a PM would ensure us the next Mark Hoffman.

The striking thing about Scratch's apparent lie is not its cosmic importance, but its clarity.

And then there's moral culpability. Threatening language can be mitigated by life circumstances and only taken seriously consequentially, if it didn't lead to physical violence, then the case should be closed. Yet, "lying" somehow rips the very fabric of Celestial moral code independent of all consequences.

If Scratch is guilty, and there are mitigating circumstances in his upbringing, medical condition, or emotional state, I'll be happy to learn of them.

And if Ray is guilty of so much as altering a PM, that would mark him as a "brazen liar".

Yes, actually. A small act, but so deliberate as to say something quite clear about one's character.

beastie wrote:Yes, it's absolutely delicious, isn't it?

You have odd tastes, but, plainly, a voracious appetite.

beastie wrote:I also can't help but wonder why DCP keeps coming back to tell us he's not interested in this event. And has no opinion on the matter.

I never said that I wasn't interested in Scratch's apparent deception. In fact, I am. I regard him as both malicious and mendacious. This is another piece of evidence (small, but crystal clear) solidifying the case.

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:10 pm

I never said that I wasn't interested in Scratch's apparent deception. In fact, I am. I regard him as both malicious and mendacious. This is another piece of evidence (small, but crystal clear) solidifying the case.

Yes, we know, Daniel. You've made that very clear.

What is also clear is that you don't consider Ray malicious and mendacious, despite the fact that he PMd several threats to the Z mods, including the dead missionaries, and then wrote a diatribe on MAD about dorks who do the same thing he did.

LOL

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:12 pm

I'm still waiting for Dan to show us where LDS scholars have been submitting their most controversial secular theories to wider academia.... He claims he won't reply simply because I am the one doing the asking, so, is anyone else up for it? Beastie? Rollo? Bond? Anyone?

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:13 pm

I like your new signature lines. I'm flattered to be quoted, possibly for the first time, by anyone on this board.

Awesome, isn't it? It had to be great to dispose Hammer's hat line.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:18 pm

beastie wrote:
I never said that I wasn't interested in Scratch's apparent deception. In fact, I am. I regard him as both malicious and mendacious. This is another piece of evidence (small, but crystal clear) solidifying the case.

Yes, we know, Daniel. You've made that very clear.

Good.

beastie wrote:What is also clear is that you don't consider Ray malicious and mendacious

You're right. I don't consider Ray malicious, and I believe him to be honest.

Sorry that that irritates you.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:22 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:I'm still waiting for Dan to show us where LDS scholars have been submitting their most controversial secular theories to wider academia.... He claims he won't reply simply because I am the one doing the asking, so, is anyone else up for it? Beastie? Rollo? Bond? Anyone?

Feel free. I'll happily discuss the subject with any coherent person over on MAD&D. I would even be willing to discuss it in private correspondence.

I won't do it here.

I'm here for only two related reasons: To deny Scratch's false claims about me, and to voice my judgment that Scratch is malevolent and mendacious. And my mission, Beastie indicates, is very nearly accomplished.

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:24 pm

You're right. I don't consider Ray malicious, and I believe him to be honest.

Sorry that that irritates you.

It doesn't irritate me. It delights and amuses me. It's always entertaining to see hypocrisy exposed. That's why it sells so many newspapers when it happens to famous folks.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:33 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I'm still waiting for Dan to show us where LDS scholars have been submitting their most controversial secular theories to wider academia.... He claims he won't reply simply because I am the one doing the asking, so, is anyone else up for it? Beastie? Rollo? Bond? Anyone?

Feel free. I'll happily discuss the subject with any coherent person over on MAD&D. I would even be willing to discuss it in private correspondence.

Why, though? Doesn't your above statement pretty much prove that this "embarrassment" or "lack of openness" genuinely exists? Why not agree to discuss it here with someone other than me? What are you afraid/embarrassed about? Why would it need to be "private"? So that you can control the flow of the conversation?

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:15 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:Why, though? Doesn't your above statement pretty much prove that this "embarrassment" or "lack of openness" genuinely exists? Why not agree to discuss it here with someone other than me? What are you afraid/embarrassed about? Why would it need to be "private"? So that you can control the flow of the conversation?

I don't intend to contribute to this board in any way. (Sorry, Scratch).

This little venture of mine is drawing to a close.