Skylla lets the cat out of the bag

[_Blixa]

I agree with beastie here, too, scottie. And of course it also matters how you define "respect." Is it respectful to protect people from hard issues and complex discussions, or more respectful to give them opportunities to learn? It is respectful to cast Joseph Smith as an ignorant farm boy of feeble intellectual skills, or more respectful to take his creative and audacious ideas and actions seriously enough to submit them to rigorous analysis?

[_Mercury]

@ MA&D:

Someone: Kim Jong Il had sex with more than just one dead hooker.

Douchepatrol: That is offensive material. Kim Jong was getting ronery so he had 5 Japanese hookers drugged and flew back to Pyongang. Do not defame our great leader. GUARDS!!!!

Link to oversized image

[_Scottie]

Skylla has clarified...

Ok. So for the sake of clarity... are all discussions about polygamy, polyandry, homosexuality, virginal conception, phallic symbolism, homosexuality, pornography, ecclesiastical pedophilia, etc., against the rules?

I can understand that you would want critics to try to be sensitive and respectful, but it is hard for me to believe that you would really want to (on an apologetic forum) ban or limit the discussions of these topics. So maybe I am misunderstanding your initial post.

Those subjects can be discussed in an acceptable manner. Often lines are crossed in those discussions and we expect more sensitivity.

[_Chap]

Skylla has clarified...

Ok. So for the sake of clarity... are all discussions about polygamy, polyandry, homosexuality, virginal conception, phallic symbolism, homosexuality, pornography, ecclesiastical pedophilia, etc., against the rules?

I can understand that you would want critics to try to be sensitive and respectful, but it is hard for me to believe that you would really want to (on an apologetic forum) ban or limit the discussions of these topics. So maybe I am misunderstanding your initial post.

Those subjects can be discussed in an acceptable manner. Often lines are crossed in those discussions and we expect more sensitivity.

On MAD it often seems to be the case that 'lines are crossed' by winning a point against a TBM poster, or by responding to Juliann's verbal extravagances with an effective put-down. Or by just posting a really inconvenient fact, such as that DCP was putting out a misleading video about horses in Book of Mormon times when he already knew about C14 data that destroyed one of his main points ... You can play with them, but they have to win, or else you get the boot and they take their ball home and tell their Mom.

Why bother?

[_Scottie]

Skylla has clarified...

Ok. So for the sake of clarity... are all discussions about polygamy, polyandry, homosexuality, virginal conception, phallic symbolism, homosexuality, pornography, ecclesiastical pedophilia, etc., against the rules?

I can understand that you would want critics to try to be sensitive and respectful, but it is hard for me to believe that you would really want to (on an apologetic forum) ban or limit the discussions of these topics. So maybe I am misunderstanding your initial post.

Those subjects can be discussed in an acceptable manner. Often lines are crossed in those discussions and we expect more sensitivity.

On MAD it often seems to be the case that 'lines are crossed' by winning a point against a TBM poster, or by responding to Juliann's verbal extravagances with an effective put-down. Or by just posting a really inconvenient fact, such as that DCP was putting out a misleading video about horses in Book of Mormon times when he already knew about C14 data that destroyed one of his main points ... You can play with them, but they have to win, or else you get the boot and they take their ball home and tell their Mom.

Why bother?

I haven't noticed this.

This is a problem with debate boards though. It's all about "winning", not about learning.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Skylla's latest, when closing Sethbag's thread (http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 3228&st=40):

Do not use our board for your attempts to drag others away from the church. Thread closed.

I wonder how much longer before they'll just come out and say it? "No criticism allowed."

[_beastie]

Those subjects can be discussed in an acceptable manner. Often lines are crossed in those discussions and we expect more sensitivity.

So what lines were crossed in the thread that prompted this, ie, the Helen Mar thread?

[Anonymous]

On MAD it often seems to be the case that 'lines are crossed' by winning a point against a TBM poster, or by responding to Juliann's verbal extravagances with an effective put-down. Or by just posting a really inconvenient fact, such as that DCP was putting out a misleading video about horses in Book of Mormon times when he already knew about C14 data that destroyed one of his main points ... You can play with them, but they have to win, or else you get the boot and they take their ball home and tell their Mom.

Why bother?

I haven't noticed this.

This is a problem with debate boards though. It's all about "winning", not about learning.

I'm sorry, Scottie, I guess I don't understand what you hadn't noticed---that the "line" is an egregious one that has more to do with contradicting a TBM position than the subject itself?

I agree that this is a problem exacerbated by seeing discussion boards as debate boards. That's clearly the assumption made by some apologetic posters like charity who describe their own posting as tit-for-tat "corrections" and point scoring.

But this kind of thing is what my contributions were about on the earlier "substantial discussion" thread: that discussion is incompatible with the aims of some posters. You can see a good example of this right now in the Celestial forum. One of the suggestions that came out of the "substantial discussion" thread was to make more Celestial threads, which is (allegedly) moderated specifically for "polite, scholarly and respectful discussion." Take a look at liz's dynastic sealing thread and notice the same old ecclesiastical threats, sneering personal put downs, and condescending use of the royal we in charity's responses to truthdancer:

We all know you hate Joseph Smith.

Your own words stand as a witness. We can all read.

[God] will hold those accountable for the sin of dishonoring His chosen servants, for defaming and blaspheming His Son, and for influencing His more vulnerable children out of the faith He wants them to have.

I'm sure God will forgive you for those sins, but you have to repent first. Just a word to the wise.

But you have to be right. Running toward the wrong goal with the football can look impressive, but it scores points for the other team.

This exemplifies a style of "discussion" I think is encouraged at MAD; it proceeds from an unspoken and perhaps largely unconscious series of prior exclusions of topics as not open to discussion. From this position, I honestly think what constitutes "polite, scholarly and respectful discussion" is unintelligible and impossible.

[_Chap]

Skylla has clarified...

Ok. So for the sake of clarity... are all discussions about polygamy, polyandry, homosexuality, virginal conception, phallic symbolism, homosexuality, pornography, ecclesiastical pedophilia, etc., against the rules?

I can understand that you would want critics to try to be sensitive and respectful, but it is hard for me to believe that you would really want to (on an apologetic forum) ban or limit the discussions of these topics. So maybe I am misunderstanding your initial post.

Those subjects can be discussed in an acceptable manner. Often lines are crossed in those discussions and we expect more sensitivity.

On MAD it often seems to be the case that 'lines are crossed' by winning a point against a TBM poster, or by responding to Juliann's verbal extravagances with an effective put-down. Or by just posting a really inconvenient fact, such as that DCP was putting out a misleading video about horses in Book of Mormon times when he already knew about C14 data that destroyed one of his main points ... You can play with them, but they have to win, or else you get the boot and they take their ball home and tell their Mom.

Why bother?

I haven't noticed this.

This is a problem with debate boards though. It's all about "winning", not about learning.

In my experience the 'winning not learning' tone is almost entirely set by the TBM majority that dominates and indeed moderates MAD. They have no interest in learning from ex-believers or disbelievers - because they know those people are just plain wrong.

To see how they treat a gentle and polite effort by a non-believer to promote understanding of his viewpoint in a quite non-polemical way, see the thread started by Sethbag and closed by Skylla, referenced in the previous post.

And, by the way, I think just plain old debating has a lot to be said for it - as one way, but not by any means the only way, of interacting with people who disagree with you. Those unwilling to let debate have free play are in effect admitting they they feel they have a weak case.

[_Brackite]

Here is a Post from the Senior Administrator Moderator named 'Nemesis', on Page #2, on that Discussion Thread, over there:

From Nemesis:

Here's what happens. People are discussing the topics about Joseph's Polyandry/Polygamy/and son on. Things go well then someone decides to throw in he was a pedophile womanizing false prophet because blah blah blah insert whatever diatribe you want blah blah blah. What kind of discussion can come out of that? None, it turns into an arguement and the discussions stops. that's what we don't want. The same thing happens when people try to use the wives who revered their polygamous husbands and Joseph as victims (there are few I am sure that feel they were victims). So lets just be a little more sensative to their memories and to the religion that hosts the board. That is all we are asking. The only topics that are barred from discussion at this point are sex, Temple, Garments, and whatever else is in the rules.

Hope this helps anyones concerns.

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 3247&st=20 )