There's something strange about 'the Mormon debater'

[_skippy the dead]

[_beastie]

Indeed! As another poster recently eloquently stated, just shoot me in the head, please.

[_wenglund]

Hey Beastie

I think you hung around on the long Tarski thread last year about epistemology - the one where Peterson once again refused to engage. What'd you make of poor William's triumphant claim about me being the one who assiduously avoids "battle" with Mormonism's apologetic heavies?

I actually feel sorry for the guy! It's like I'm starting to relive all my own sobering realizations of just how lame those guys really were....ouch.

I'm amused by those who speak of alleged "triumphant claims" of others, as they, themselves, proceed to verbally strut, with dramatic flare (sobering?) and condescending pity, before those of like minds and in presumed desparate need of mutually favorable nods of affirmation. Tis good that Tal and Beastie have each other. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Ok, Wade, let's test your weaseling skills with this one:

The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.

Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that intelligent men may actually believe this totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that these intelligent men who believe this totally erroneous idea have formed this belief as a result of a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence?

Do you concede that, while this belief was formed in a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence, these same intelligent men may use their intelligence and skills to defend this belief?

[_beastie]

Actually, the false conclusion you just came to is "garbage out", as is also most everything you post on these boards, including what you post below.

For those actually aware of the cognitive/communicative process, in terms of interpretation, one filters what comes IN to one's brain, not what come OUT (though, in your case, the world may be better served if you had a banality filter on what comes OUT--which would conceivable render you mute, if not moot) ;-)

Of course we filter what comes IN. But it becomes garbage AFTER that filtering.

This is how little sense your statement makes.

Person X reads the Book of Mormon and decides that this scripture means that God sanctions bigotry and bias against people with dark skins.

In the world at large (ie, the nonwade world) if someone said "garbage in, garbage out", that would mean that the Book of Mormon itself is garbage. Therefore, it is no surprise when garbage is produced as a result of reading it.

In wade's world, to say "garbage in, garbage out" doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon itself is garbage, but rather that the FILTERING process is garbage. Of course, the FILTERING process is what produces what comes OUT.....and that's what the second "garbage" refers to... but then the first "garbage" refers to it, too....so the "garbage IN" doesn't refer to what actually comes IN to the brain, but the FILTERING of the brain.. but the FILTER doesn't come IN to the brain, it's just the brain's process itself....

and at that point, the person trying to understand wade's world will have the same expression as my avatar.

[_beastie]

by the way, Wade, I'm going to nag you with these questions over and over, so you might as well bite the bullet and answer them.



The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.

Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that intelligent men may actually believe this totally erroneous idea?

Do you concede that these intelligent men who believe this totally erroneous idea have formed this belief as a result of a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence?

Do you concede that, while this belief was formed in a process that has nothing to do with their intelligence, these same intelligent men may use their intelligence and skills to defend this belief?

[_wenglund]

Actually, the false conclusion you just came to is "garbage out", as is also most everything you post on these boards, including what you post below.

For those actually aware of the cognitive/communicative process, in terms of interpretation, one filters what comes IN to one's brain, not what come OUT (though, in your case, the world may be better served if you had a banality filter on what comes OUT--which would conceivable render you mute, if not moot) ;-)

Of course we filter what comes IN. But it becomes garbage AFTER that filtering.

This is how little sense your statement makes.

I see it differently. I see the filtering as A PART of the IN process, and the garbage occurs DURING the filtering, not AFTER. If you are familiar with Kant's view of congnitions and Blooms taxonomy of learning, you would understand that the IN process includes various steps: sensations, perceptions, conceptions, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, systhesis, and evaluation. Filtering may take place at or between each of these steps, particularly the first 5. In your case, I believe the garbaged was filtered IN likely between the sensations and conceptions or knowledge steps, but prior to comprehension (since that is where things often tend to break down for you), which is DURING the IN process and BEFORE the IN process is completed.

Now, I am not sure if you are capable of understanding this explanation as a part of "wades world" (it is highly doubtful), but there it is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

by the way, Wade, I'm going to nag you with these questions over and over, so you might as well bite the bullet and answer them.

The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.

Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?

No. First of all, I am not familiar enough with NAMBLA to know whether you have accurately represented their idea (you have a dismal record in accurately conveying the beliefs of organizations you oppose). Second, as a matter of opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), I believe that, on balance, and by far and away (not to be confused with "totally") this is an erroneous idea.

Since your follow-up questions presuppose my answering in the affirmative, they do not apply as asked.

I realize that you are attempting to get me to think and respond in the same binary, absolutist, closed-minded way you do, but my mind doesn't operate that way--and this because I have found it to be somewhat unworkable to adult progression (though quite appropriate for children). You are certainly welcome to continue trying and nagging, but you may just as well bite the bullet and let it go. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Loquacious Lurker]

No. First of all, I am not familiar enough with NAMBLA to know whether you have accurately represented their idea (you have a dismal record in accurately conveying the beliefs of organizations you oppose). Second, as a matter of opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), I believe that, on balance, and by far and away (not to be confused with "totally") this is an erroneous idea.

Educate yourself then.

"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships" in spite of the fact that such relationships are seen as child sexual abuse where the minor is unable to give consent. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

http://www.nambla.org/

[_wenglund]

No. First of all, I am not familiar enough with NAMBLA to know whether you have accurately represented their idea (you have a dismal record in accurately conveying the beliefs of organizations you oppose). Second, as a matter of opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), I believe that, on balance, and by far and away (not to be confused with "totally") this is an erroneous idea.

Educate yourself then.

"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships" in spite of the fact that such relationships are seen as child sexual abuse where the minor is unable to give consent. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

http://www.nambla.org/

I would just as soon not dive into that sewage plant. But since you don't seem adverse, could you find a quote from NAMBLA that explicitly states what Beastie claims of them?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-