Wade and Shermer

[_malkie]

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?

OK, Wade....so just to clarify, your answer to the FIRST question is "Yes"....Your answer to the second question is "No", meaning that the men who feel this way are not intelligent.

THAT I will buy!

;)

I don't agree, liz.

I cannot be sure, of course, but I would suspect that there could be intelligent men who actually believe this totally erroneous idea. Absence of evidence (in this case, that such men exist) is not evidence of absence - or so I keep hearing from apologists.

Could you prove that all men who actually believe this totally erroneous idea are unintelligent? Or are you just willing to accept it on faith? (;=>

[_wenglund]

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".

....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This reminds me of something ... what could it be ... Oh, I know!

If I pray about something, and don't get the "correct" answer, this constitutes not doing it right - not being worthy enough, not asking correctly, not having the appropriate amount of faith etc.

I know that the analogy is not perfect, but I do think that the "narrow and closed-minded world" description applies very nicely to the LDS view.

I'm not sure the "LDS view" can accurately be stereotyped in that way, even were your analogy anywhere close to perfect. Certainly, my LDS mind doesn't work that way.

Nor, do I think it accurate to consider the supposed "LDS view" as necessarily narrow and closed-minded.

It is one thing to reasonably disagree about what is the "correct" answer and reasonably disagree why some may not get the respectively perceived "correct" answer, and it is quite a different thing to irrationally say that someone hasn't answered a question when they clearly have.

I have no problem if Beastie believes differently than me, and thinks the correct answer to her absolutist question is "yes". I don't even have a problem were she to suggest various reasons why I didn't come to the answer she believes is correct. There is nothing inherently narrow and closed-minded about that.

To me, where it becomes narrow and closed-minded is not only in her inability to grant that others may reasonably come to a differing answer from her own, but her refusal to even grant that others have come to a different answer from her (even though the answer has been explicitly stated and pointed out to her multiple times), and her penchant for mischaracterizing what has actually been said, not to mention her ironic "refusal" to answer some of the questions she has been asked. Its as though for her the only things that can be heard or accepted and respected are those that comports with what is already in her mind.

But, I am please to hear your tacit agreement that Beastie is being narrow and closed-minded in this case. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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?

OK, Wade....so just to clarify, your answer to the FIRST question is "Yes"....Your answer to the second question is "No", meaning that the men who feel this way are not intelligent.

THAT I will buy!

;)

Yes and no. My answer to the first question was a qualified "no" (and may thus also reasonably be viewed as a qualified "yes"). And, since I answered the first question with a qualified "no", I couldn't logically answer the remaining questions because they presupposed an unqualified "yes".

I hope this helps. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_malkie]

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".

....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This reminds me of something ... what could it be ... Oh, I know!

If I pray about something, and don't get the "correct" answer, this constitutes not doing it right - not being worthy enough, not asking correctly, not having the appropriate amount of faith etc.

I know that the analogy is not perfect, but I do think that the "narrow and closed-minded world" description applies very nicely to the LDS view.

I'm not sure the "LDS view" can accurately be stereotyped in that way, even were your analogy anywhere close to perfect. Certainly, my LDS mind doesn't work that way.

Nor, do I think it accurate to consider the supposed "LDS view" as necessarily narrow and closed-minded.

It is one thing to reasonably disagree about what is the "correct" answer and reasonably disagree why some may not get the respectively perceived "correct" answer, and it is quite a different thing to irrationally say that someone hasn't answered a question when they clearly have.

I have no problem if Beastie believes differently than me, and thinks the correct answer to her absolutist question is "yes". I don't even have a problem were she to suggest various reasons why I didn't come to the answer she believes is correct. There is nothing inherently narrow and closed-minded about that.

To me, where it becomes narrow and closed-minded is not only in her inability to grant that others may reasonably come to a differing answer from her own, but her refusal to even grant that others have come to a different answer from her (even though the answer has been explicitly stated and pointed out to her multiple times), and her penchant for mischaracterizing what has actually been said, not to mention her ironic "refusal" to answer some of the questions she has been asked. Its as though for her the only things that can be heard or accepted and respected are those that comports with what is already in her mind.

But, I am please to hear your tacit agreement that Beastie is being narrow and closed-minded in this case. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Surely you don't think that my quoting of your characterisation of beastie's world as "narrow and closed-minded" constitutes my "tacit agreement that Beastie is being narrow and closed-minded in this case"!

And this after my "defence" of the proper spelling of your surname - I'm hurt!

Careful - you'll give apologetic debating tactics a bad name.

[Gadianton]

By way of clarification, let me reword Beastie's questions in non-absolutist ways and ways that don't confuse fact with opinon, and answer them accordingly, in the hope of clearing up whatever confusion there may be about my position on the matter:

Assuming for the sake of argument that the NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men...

1. Is it your opinion that this is an erroneous idea?

Answer: yes.

2. Is it your opinion that intelligent men may actually believe this erroneous idea?

Answer: yes.

3. Is it your opinion that these intelligent men who believe this erroneous idea may have formed this belief as a result of a process that may not utilize their intelligence?

Answer: Yes

4. Is it your opinion that, while this alleged NAMBLA belief may have, for some intelligent men, been formed through a process that may have not utilized intelligence, these same intelligent men may use their intelligence and skills to defend this belief?

Answer: Yes.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Surely you don't think that my quoting of your characterisation of beastie's world as "narrow and closed-minded" constitutes my "tacit agreement that Beastie is being narrow and closed-minded in this case"!

No, I surely do not--though I may reasonably induce it from your saying "this reminds of..." ;-)

Either way, I am open to being corrected if you don't agree with my assessment in this case. Just let me know.

Careful - you'll give apologetic debating tactics a bad name.

Ah...but I don't view myself as an apologist or as debating (I am simply here to have a friendly discussion and to offer this one man's differing point of view and to correct mis-staments about me and my faith), but I agree that we all may do well to take care.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_malkie]

Surely you don't think that my quoting of your characterisation of beastie's world as "narrow and closed-minded" constitutes my "tacit agreement that Beastie is being narrow and closed-minded in this case"!

No, I surely do not--though I may reasonably induce it from your saying "this reminds of..." ;-)

Either way, I am open to being corrected if you don't agree with my assessment in this case. Just let me know.

Careful - you'll give apologetic debating tactics a bad name.

Ah...but I don't view myself as an apologist or as debating (I am simply here to have a friendly discussion and to offer this one man's differing point of view and to correct mis-staments about me and my faith), but I agree that we all may do well to take care.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm letting you know that the "what" in "what reminds me of ..." was your characterisation of "beastie's world". Sorry if that was unclear.

Sorry also if I misunderstood your view of yourself. Since you mention it, I have a feeling that I may have read a similar statement from you in the past - I just didn't recall it until I read it in your post.

One thing I have to say though - your "angle" on things is often challenging. For me (at least) it is provocative, and adds a bit of spice to the board.

[_wenglund]

One thing I have to say though - your "angle" on things is often challenging. For me (at least) it is provocative, and adds a bit of spice to the board.

That is kind of you to say, and I hope you know that the seniment is mutual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

By way of clarification, let me reword Beastie's questions in non-absolutist ways and ways that don't confuse fact with opinon, and answer them accordingly, in the hope of clearing up whatever confusion there may be about my position on the matter:

Assuming for the sake of argument that the NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men...

1. Is it your opinion that this is an erroneous idea?

Answer: yes.

2. Is it your opinion that intelligent men may actually believe this erroneous idea?

Answer: yes.

3. Is it your opinion that these intelligent men who believe this erroneous idea may have formed this belief as a result of a process that may not utilize their intelligence?

Answer: Yes

4. Is it your opinion that, while this alleged NAMBLA belief may have, for some intelligent men, been formed through a process that may have not utilized intelligence, these same intelligent men may use their intelligence and skills to defend this belief?

Answer: Yes.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just a couple of questions.

1 - What do you imagine I was asking for other than your opinion????

You are the one who likes to throw around the terms "black and white", "absolutist", and "fundamentalist". What term shall we use to describe someone who insists that the words IN YOUR OPINION must be included, even though any sensible and sane person would understood that was implicit??

2 - Given your compulsion to add the word "opinion" to these questions, just what could change your opinion on, say, this one:

"1. Is it your opinion that this is an erroneous idea?

Answer: yes. "

How about if God revealed to his prophet, and then verified to you, that it was good for men to have sex with young boys? Would your opinion change then?

[_wenglund]

Just a couple of questions.

1 - What do you imagine I was asking for other than your opinion????

It wasn't imagined at all, is was explicitly stated by you in the words "in fact". (Bolded so you don't mis the clear reference to what it was you were asking for).

You are the one who likes to throw around the terms "black and white", "absolutist", and "fundamentalist". What term shall we use to describe someone who insists that the words IN YOUR OPINION must be included, even though any sensible and sane person would understood that was implicit??

I don't know what you are talking about? I didn'tt insist that those words be used, and reasonable people wouldn't think that I had. I simply declined conceding to your potentially misleading use of the word "fact", and rephrased your question so as to avoid potentially misleading.

Are you sure you teach comprehension skills?

2 - Given your compulsion to add the word "opinion" to these questions, just what could change your opinion on, say, this one:

"1. Is it your opinion that this is an erroneous idea?

Answer: yes. "

How about if God revealed to his prophet, and then verified to you, that it was good for men to have sex with young boys? Would your opinion change then?

I don't know for sure? It depends on the strength and nature of the verification. It's possible that I might change my opinion after reasoning the matter through. However, I tend not to give such valueless (to me) hypotheticals much thought, since they tend not to reflect my experience in this world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-