Double Standard--Question for Will, et. al. from MAD

[_cksalmon]

you don't see Peterson jumping in and saying, "hey, I think Will is going too far and certainly many critics that post like Tarski are intelligent, respectful and.."

Nope, never.

Senhor Peterson doesn't criticize his own kind. Nope, never.

A group of Evangelical Christians tracting at a July 4th parade yesterday in Provo elicited this categorical statement from Dr. Peterson:

Sincerity is no excuse when actions are tacky, inappropriate, offensive, etc. -- Daniel Peterson (MADB)

It would be nice if he were able to bring that sort of moral clarity to bear on the actions of his fellow Latter-day Saints. I wonder why he feels comfortable making such explicit pronouncements about the actions of "anti-Mormon," EV tracters (who have the best of intentions, whether one thinks their actions are silly, etc.), but with regard to the issue of this thread (where the intention seems clearly to have been to be "tacky, inappropriate, and offensive"), he only feels comfortable making comments about his own personal actions and preferences.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It would be nice if he were able to bring that sort of moral clarity to bear on the actions of his fellow Latter-day Saints.

It would be nice if you had the slightest real knowledge of who I am and what I do.

My statement that I don't do and don't approve of crude sexual humor is, I think, unambiguous.

I'm sorry that I haven't yet denounced Will Schryver with precisely the level of vehemence and personal disdain that your specifications call for. I find your continued demands deeply weird.

I have nothing to do with Will Schryver's posts. I'm not responsible for them. They weren't aimed at me, and I didn't read them. By contrast, your anti-Mormon allies at the Provo parade targeted my wife, who brought two specimens of their work home with her. Besides which, if I recall correctly, I'm free. I can comment on some things and not comment on other things without being accountable to you for either choice. (Is that still true?)

I wonder why he feels comfortable making such explicit pronouncements about the actions of "anti-Mormon," EV tracters (who have the best of intentions, whether one thinks their actions are silly, etc.), but with regard to the issue of this thread (where the intention seems clearly to have been to be "tacky, inappropriate, and offensive"), he only feels comfortable making comments about his own personal actions and preferences.

What was my statement about the anti-Mormons who targeted yesterday's parade, if not a comment about my preferences? I found their actions "tacky, inappropriate, and offensive."

But, with apologies to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, I now offer this up to you:

I abjure thee, Will Schryver, evil and most lewd of posters. In other words, I no longer fear thy humor, for CKSalmon has rendered this humor humorless and made me a sharer in this board's overwhelming condemnation of thee, whereby he destroyed my secret FARMSboy delight in thy sexual metaphors so that I might not always be subjected to slavery. I abjure thee, cunning and crafty serpent. I abjure thee, tempter, thou who didst bring about all forms of unpleasantness under the guise of apologetics and didst bring this otherwise sweet and collegial message board nigh unto perdition. I abjure thee, Will Schryver, creator and accomplice of all evil. I abjure thee. Amen and amen.

Will that suffice?

[_cksalmon]

It would be nice if he were able to bring that sort of moral clarity to bear on the actions of his fellow Latter-day Saints.

It would be nice if you had the slightest real knowledge of who I am and what I do.

My statement that I don't do and don't approve of crude sexual humor is, I think, unambiguous.

I'm sorry that I haven't yet denounced Will Schryver with precisely the level of vehemence and personal disdain that your specifications call for. I find your continued demands deeply weird.

This is, of course, a strawman. I'd refer you to my post at the bottom of the preceding page.

Just for the sake of clarity, for me it's not about Schryver as a person (I'm sure, in person, he can be an agreeable, even charming, fellow), but about certain of his comments. There's certainly a distinction between the two, to my mind. I've never wanted you "to pronounce public judgment on him," but wanted to give you a conspicuous opportunity to distance yourself from his attacks. I realize that you're not interested in doing so (for your own reasons), and so, for me, the matter is essentially closed.

I post this only to state explicitly that I was never interested in your condemning William Schryver as a person. If, in some of the heated exchanges, that was the impression I made, it was certainly unintentional.

Happy Fourth, Dr. P.

That you would phrase your faux apology in terms of not "[having] yet denounced Will Schryver with precisely the level of vehemence and personal disdain that your specifications call for" strikes me as a manipulative rhetorical flourish given the fact that I've already stated that your "[denouncing] Will Schryver" is simply not what I had in mind. The reason for your phrasing it that way cannot be because you wish to provide an apropos response to me, since my prior comments give the lie to your phraseology.

I have nothing to do with Will Schryver's posts. I'm not responsible for them. They weren't aimed at me, and I didn't read them.

I can only assume then that you randomly pick and choose what posts on this board made by me that you do read. For instance, you read my preceding post, obviously (since you've chosen to respond to it; on the other hand, in multiple prior responses to your posts here (made by me) and posts (made by me) that were directed to you (while not necessarily quoting you), I have directly quoted Schryver's comments [and, of course, some of Will's comments that you presumably happened to have missed appear in the previous pages of this very thread, which you've been following fairly closely for a bit now, but I suppose not closely enough to have read any of Schryver's quotations]. Thus, if you read any of my prior posts that explicitly quoted Schryver, then you have read the content of Will Schryver's posts. So, it stands to reason, then, that, per you, you just happen not to have read any of Will offensive posts that are the subject of this thread and/or (1) you just happen not to have read any of my posts in response to you that quoted Schryver directly, or (2) you're making a distinction between having read the quotations from Schryver as quoted in my posts and actually having read Schryver's original post.

By contrast, your anti-Mormon allies at the Provo parade targeted my wife, who brought two specimens of their work home with her.

And Will targeted critics of the LDS Church as a class. So, what?

The tracters intent, however misguided and offensive you may find it, was an evagelistically-minded one intended for the spiritual good of the LDS in attendance.

Will's intent was to be demeaning, offensive, insulting, tacky, inappropriate, etc.

Besides which, if I recall correctly, I'm free. I can comment on some things and not comment on other things without being accountable to you for either choice. (Is that still true?)

It's just interesting how you choose to respond to different situations in different ways.

I wonder why he feels comfortable making such explicit pronouncements about the actions of "anti-Mormon," EV tracters (who have the best of intentions, whether one thinks their actions are silly, etc.), but with regard to the issue of this thread (where the intention seems clearly to have been to be "tacky, inappropriate, and offensive"), he only feels comfortable making comments about his own personal actions and preferences.

What was my statement about the anti-Mormons who targeted yesterday's parade, if not a comment about my preferences? I found their actions "tacky, inappropriate, and offensive."

This is a statement of preferences:

I would certainly never hand out LDS tracts to EV Christians at a fourth of July parade and I'd prefer that they not do the reverse.

Your statement was:

Sincerity is no excuse when actions are tacky, inappropriate, offensive, etc.

If I might rephrase:

Actions that are tacky, inappropriate, or offensive are inexcusable despite the sincerity of the perpetrator

That's certainly much, much more than a statement of mere personal preference.

That's a moral judgment made directly in response to the actions of others with whom you disagree.

My statement that I don't do and don't approve of crude sexual humor is, I think, unambiguous.

Certainly, it's a statement about you personally. Your comment on MADB was a statement about the actions of a group with whom you disagree.

But, with apologies to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, I now offer this up to you:

I abjure thee, Will Schryver, evil and most lewd of posters. In other words, I no longer fear thy humor, for CKSalmon has rendered this humor humorless and made me a sharer in this board's overwhelming condemnation of thee, whereby he destroyed my secret FARMSboy delight in thy sexual metaphors so that I might not always be subjected to slavery. I abjure thee, cunning and crafty serpent. I abjure thee, tempter, thou who didst bring about all forms of unpleasantness under the guise of apologetics and didst bring this otherwise sweet and collegial message board nigh unto perdition. I abjure thee, Will Schryver, creator and accomplice of all evil. I abjure thee. Amen and amen.

Will that suffice?

Suffice for what purpose? To be witty? Sure, it sufficeth for such.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you don't want me to denounce Will Schryver, but you do want me to distance myself from what you view as Will Schryver's crude sexual language, and I've expressed my disapproval of crude sexual language, I'm not really sure what it is that you still demand that I do.

I've read your quotations from Will Schryver. I'm not sure that I've read all or even most of Will Schryver's original posts from which you've extracted what you view as Will Schryver's crude sexual language. Some or even much of that, if I'm not mistaken, occurred in threads I wasn't following. I don't know whether your quotations from Will Schryver accurately represent the context of what you cite from him nor that they reflect his overall tenor, and I haven't troubled to look. I'm not interested. It doesn't concern me. I wasn't involved. There's no reason for me to be involved. I don't owe it to you to involve myself. He has his style and approach, I have mine, and we don't consult with one another about our posts here. We're not part of a team. We don't work for the same company. We don't even live in the same county. I've rarely actually spoken with Will Schryver.

I don't get it.

I feel no urge to address specific passages that don't concern me, don't interest me, and have nothing to do with me. I've stated my general view.

Why on earth does it matter so much to you that I wade into this quarrel of yours with Will Schryver? It seems positively bizarre to me that you appear so obsessed with it.

It's now a matter of principle with me, though: I will not comply with your demands. I will not join in your quarrel. I have no obligation to do so, nor to dance a jig to whatever weird and agenda-driven tune it is that you're playing.

I will also not obey commands to denounce Droopy's political ideology, The Nehor's sense of humor, Liz's Goddess Suite, RayA's views on NDE's, or any given opinion from BCSpace. I'll post on what I feel like posting on, when I feel like posting on it.

[_cksalmon]

I don't get it.

I feel no urge to address specific passages that don't concern me, don't interest me, and have nothing to do with me. I've stated my general view.

Why on earth does it matter so much to you that I wade into this quarrel of yours with Will Schryver?

There's no quarrel, as I've already stated--at least not from my end (though Schryver has referred to me as "Dear Adversary").

It seems positively bizarre to me that you appear so obsessed with it.

And? It seems positively bizzare to me that you would claim not to have read Schryver's offensive posts and now to claim that you have read my quotations of Schryver's offensive posts.

You'll have to forgive me for practically begging you to explicitly denounce (i.e., make a moral pronouncement of the sort that you made against EV tracters) Schryver's disgusting comments (comments in the defense of which he has implicated associates of FARMS).

You'll have to forgive me, I suppose, for wanting to believe that this would actually be a no-brainer.

The Dude was apparently correct:

Senhor Peterson doesn't criticize his own kind. Nope, never.

It's now a matter of principle with me, though: I will not comply with your demands. I will not join in your quarrel. I have no obligation to do so, nor to dance a jig to whatever weird and agenda-driven tune it is that you're playing.

Meh. You're correct: you certainly have no obligation to me.

I think it's been a matter of principle for you all along (see The Dude's statement directly above).

Making moral pronouncements about the actions of evangelistic "anti-Mormons" who, rightly or wrongly, act in the hope and desire that, perhaps through their actions, some Mormons will make it into the EV understanding of heaven ... well, now, that's an entirely different cup of tea.

That's the sort of behavior that is apparently worthy of explicit, categorical censure in your mind.

Ultimately, it's not my concern whether or not you "comply" with my "demands." Again, I just wanted explicitly to give you an opportunity to make an explicit, categorical statement about his comments (because I, personally, really wanted you to do so--to say something like, "That's not at all what the Restored Gospel is about"). That's all.

It ain't gonna happen, and I unequivocally, absolutely get that fact, now.

As a simulacrum of humanity to the real thing,

Chris

[_Wheat]

I regret not having had time in the past week to follow this *interesting* discussion.

I confess to having been tricked, at first, by cksalmon’s subtle twisting of the things Shryver has written __ whether by paraphrasing, taking out of context, or simply by arguing for an interpretation __ via rhetorical fiat __ that departs radically from the more obvious possibilities.

For example, Shryver makes it clear that he is using the term *circle jerk* in a figurative sense to describe what he considers the habit of certain people here to engage in *orgies* of mutually-reinforcing and largely self-indulgent attacks on Mormon luminaries __ one of the most recent episodes being the thread that attacked John Tvednes. But salmon insists on informing us that Shryver is really accusing people here of being actual homosexuals who get together for mutual masturbation sessions, etc.

Salmon and his supporters have gone on and on and on and on with their expressions of outrage at the supposedly crude and vulgar things Shryver has said. But I have followed this board for a long while and I would say that the worst quote from Shryver never rises past the *PG-13* level. On the other hand, everytime I come here I can read posts from board regulars that are *R* and sometimes even *XXX* rated. I guess there is a double-standard.

Now Pr. Peterson is being made to answer for Shryver’s sins __ such as they are. Although Shryver’s well-attested obesity probably made it a strenuous effort, throwing him under the bus has now been accomplished:

I abjure thee, Will Schryver, evil and most lewd of posters. In other words, I no longer fear thy humor, for CKSalmon has rendered this humor humorless and made me a sharer in this board's overwhelming condemnation of thee, whereby he destroyed my secret FARMSboy delight in thy sexual metaphors so that I might not always be subjected to slavery. I abjure thee, cunning and crafty serpent. I abjure thee, tempter, thou who didst bring about all forms of unpleasantness under the guise of apologetics and didst bring this otherwise sweet and collegial message board nigh unto perdition. I abjure thee, Will Schryver, creator and accomplice of all evil. I abjure thee. Amen and amen.

Apparently Shryver was a willing martyr __ if his latest avatar has the meaning I think it does.

I will now revert to lurking mode once again …………………………….

[_Daniel Peterson]

And? It seems positively bizzare to me that you would claim not to have read Schryver's offensive posts and now to claim that you have read my quotations of Schryver's offensive posts.

Did you quote them in their entirety? I have no idea. I haven't checked. I'm not interested. I haven't followed your exchange with Will Schryver. It doesn't involve me. It never did. I don't care.

But there's a big difference between a text, A, and a quotation from A. And, if A appears along with texts B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, judging the author of texts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H on the basis of A alone, or even on the basis of a critic's extract from A alone, is problematic.

I believe I've mentioned before that I haven't been following your discussions with Will Schryver. I'm not interested in them.

You'll have to forgive me for practically begging you to explicitly denounce (i.e., make a moral pronouncement of the sort that you made against EV tracters) Schryver's disgusting comments (comments in the defense of which he has implicated associates of FARMS).

I forgive you.

I've also declared my lack of support for disgusting comments and my doubt that anybody at FARMS thinks otherwise.

You'll have to forgive me, I suppose, for wanting to believe that this would actually be a no-brainer.

It was a no-brainer. Which is why I did it at the first opportunity.

YThe Dude was apparently correct:

Senhor Peterson doesn't criticize his own kind. Nope, never.

So what you actually want from me is not a denunciation of Will Schryver but a denunciation of Will Schryver. You want me to decry disgusting and crude sexual metaphors, but decrying disgusting and crude sexual metaphors, which I've done, is not what you want.

You're trying to score another point for some other agenda, and my cooperation is essential to furthering that agenda and scoring that point.

Making moral pronouncements about the actions of evangelistic "anti-Mormons" who, rightly or wrongly, act in the hope and desire that, perhaps through their actions, some Mormons will make it into the EV understanding of heaven ... well, now, that's an entirely different cup of tea.

That's the sort of behavior that is apparently worthy of explicit, categorical censure in your mind.

I posted a note about it.

I post what I want, when I want to post it. And I don't post on things that I don't want to post on.

If you look over the threads on this board and on the board formerly known as FAIR, you'll find that the large majority of them feature not a single note from me. That's because I freely choose to comment wherever I feel like commenting, and don't choose to comment where I don't feel like commenting. And I don't feel any obligation to report to you or anybody else about those choices. Call me eccentric, in that regard. I also lean libertarian, politically.

Ultimately, it's not my concern whether or not you "comply" with my "demands." Again, I just wanted explicitly to give you an opportunity to make an explicit, categorical statement about his comments (because I, personally, really wanted you to do so--to say something like, "That's not at all what the Restored Gospel is about"). That's all.

My express and unambiguous declaration, repeated multiple times, that I don't do crude sexual humor and don't approve of crude sexual humor still leaves you in doubt, somehow, as to whether I think the Restored Gospel is actually about crude sexual humor?

Molto bizarro. (That's for Chap and Marg.)

[_cksalmon]

You're trying to score another point for some other agenda, and my cooperation is essential to furthering that agenda and scoring that point.

If you wish further to misconstrue my comments in this manner, be my guest.

Your "cooperation" is utterly unnecessary in the sequential acts of my seeking information and, from obtainable information, drawing conclusions (which happens, here, to constitute my entire agenda). Your "cooperation" would have been useful in pursuit of same, but it is certainly not essential.

[_Gadianton]

Wheat, you ought to read the thread then. Your position has already been dismantled.

[_cksalmon]

I regret not having had time in the past week to follow this *interesting* discussion.

I confess to having been tricked, at first, by cksalmon’s subtle twisting of the things Shryver has written __ whether by paraphrasing, taking out of context, or simply by arguing for an interpretation __ via rhetorical fiat __ that departs radically from the more obvious possibilities.

For example, Shryver makes it clear that he is using the term *circle jerk* in a figurative sense to describe what he considers the habit of certain people here to engage in *orgies* of mutually-reinforcing and largely self-indulgent attacks on Mormon luminaries __ one of the most recent episodes being the thread that attacked John Tvednes. But salmon insists on informing us that Shryver is really accusing people here of being actual homosexuals who get together for mutual masturbation sessions, etc.

Schryver made reference to "shameless buggerers" who gather in a circle to "spill their seed" on KG's tossed-in "biscuit."

Schryver is the one who suggested homosexual activity. Not I.

You obviously haven't been following this particular thread carefully.

You've been tricked by Schryver's attempts to rehab his comments.

(I predict that, if Will responds to this thread further, he will suggest that by "shameless buggerers" who gather in a circle to spill their seed on Graham's tossed-in biscuit, he will state that all his intelligent friends knew all along that he was referring merely to heretics of the LDS religion [rather than to sodomites]. If not, Will, that's a freebie.)