Wade and Shermer

[_beastie]

I know that I really should not tangle with Wade, because he is clearly a much more accomplished debater than I am, and so he will probably tie me in knots with one hand behind his back. However, I found it impossible to resist this parody of beastie's original post:

snicker

[_wenglund]

I see that you are once again disengaging from what I have actually said and instead are resorting to self-serving caricatures and putting words into my mouth, and thus intent on carrying on both sides of the conversation. So, what's the point in me participating?

I have speculated about why you will not answer the questions, that is true. What is undeniable is that you refused to answer the questions because you said you did not trust my representation of NAMBLA's position. LL provided evidence that it was, indeed, accurate, and a cursory google search on the subject would also verify that accuracy. That's what NAMBLA is all about.

Yet you still refuse to answer the questions. I only began speculation on why you would refuse to do so after you refused to do so.

What's so scary about these questions?

Apparently, in your narrow and closed-minded world, if someone doesn't answer your Y/N question with the "yes" that you want, this constitutes "refusing to answer the question"--even though I quite willingly and clearly answered your question "no".

It also appears that in your narrow and closed-minded world, if someone doesn't answer the questions exactly as you wish, it is becaused they are "scarred".

So, not only are you intent in carrying on both sides of the conversation, but you are only willing to hear what it is you want to hear, and the straw man you have constructed to speak on my behalf, is imagined to be frightened of answer as you wish.

How convenient. Such intollerance of opposing views, while certainly prejudiced, no doubt keeps your mindset safe and secure (speaking, ironically, of "scarred") from the inferred threat of differing ideas.

As such, I ask again, what is the point of my participation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

The end result is the same, wade. You won't answer the questions, even after it was proven that my representation of NAMBLA's beliefs were accurate. None of the rest of your blather alibi matters.

Really, what sane person would deny any of this, anyway?

1. Intelligent people can and do believe in totally erroneous ideas.
2. Intelligent people often developed said beliefs through mechanisms not involving their intelligence. These mechanisms include things such as childhood indoctrination or emotional involvements.
3. Intelligent people will use ther intelligence to defend these same totally erroneous beliefs.

Now, wade is weaseling due to the word "totally". However, it's necessary to close that window to make this point, otherwise weasels will attempt to pry open an escape clause, such as intelligent people are really defending the PARTS of their belief system that is actually accurate. I don't know if any apologist would attempt to so respond, but they definitely use that reasoning when explaining why nonLDS people have strong beliefs (what in the LDS community would be called a "testimony") about their own faiths.

[_wenglund]

The end result is the same, wade. You won't answer the questions, even after it was proven that my representation of NAMBLA's beliefs were accurate. None of the rest of your blather alibi matters.

So, in amazing irony, rather than answer my question, you continue to repeat your same counterfactual mantra--as if in hopes of drowning out what to your mind is unwanted reality. I'll take this as a tacit admission that there is no point in my continued participation in this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_malkie]

The end result is the same, wade. You won't answer the questions, even after it was proven that my representation of NAMBLA's beliefs were accurate. None of the rest of your blather alibi matters.

So, in amazing irony, rather than answer my question, you continue to repeat your same counterfactual mantra--as if in hopes of drowning out what to your mind is unwanted reality. I'll take this as a tacit admission that there is no point in my continued participation in this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nice!!

Great way of ducking out, Wade, especially since it was beastie who first asked questions that you have conspicuously failed to answer.

[_beastie]

Nice!!

Great way of ducking out, Wade, especially since it was beastie who first asked questions that you have conspicuously failed to answer.

He's hoping we won't notice.

[_Tal Bachman]

I love you Beastie, but...

he just can't do it.

It's pointless.

[_beastie]

I love you Beastie, but...

he just can't do it.

It's pointless.

Yeah, I know. When he's been gone for a while and then returns, it takes me a little while to remember that.

[_wenglund]

The end result is the same, wade. You won't answer the questions, even after it was proven that my representation of NAMBLA's beliefs were accurate. None of the rest of your blather alibi matters.

So, in amazing irony, rather than answer my question, you continue to repeat your same counterfactual mantra--as if in hopes of drowning out what to your mind is unwanted reality. I'll take this as a tacit admission that there is no point in my continued participation in this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nice!!

Great way of ducking out, Wade, especially since it was beastie who first asked questions that you have conspicuously failed to answer.

What part of my explicit answer "no" to Beastie's first question are you conspicuously failing to see?

How is it that you fail to understand that by me answering "no" to the first question, I cannot logically answer her followup questions since they presuppose a "yes" answer?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Nice!!

Great way of ducking out, Wade, especially since it was beastie who first asked questions that you have conspicuously failed to answer.

He's hoping we won't notice.

To borrow a phrase from Dr. Peterson, "need more straw?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-