Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_John Larsen]

Some critics fault BYU for allegedly lacking academic freedom. I take it that you join John Larsen in believing that it has too much?

You aren't honestly trying to conflate Hamblin's "prank" with academic freedom are you?

[_Mister Scratch]

As you well know, he was forced to rewrite it

I don't know that. I know otherwise.

You're wrong.

More sophistry. You are probably thinking something like, "He didn't have to rewrite it. We just chose to do it." Sure you did, Prof. P.

Another way that apologists ridicule opponents is highlighting trivial errors in their writing—through the apparently malicious use of “sic,” for example,

There's nothing "malicious" about putting [sic] after a quoted error. It's the standard way of indicating that the error existed in the original quoted material.

No; it exists to avoid creating confusion. Yet another nice attempt at spinning you and your friends' malicious tactics, though.

Finally, apologists have a penchant for describing their work with metaphors of violence: blowing away zombies;

I believe that Bill Hamblin and I are responsible for using the "zombie" image. And I can promise you that it had nothing whatsoever to do with "violence." Our joke about a hypothetical movie entitled Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell referred to the fact that certain anti-Mormon arguments (we particularly had in mind fundamentalist Protestant anti-Mormonism) keep coming up over and over and over again no matter how little merit there is in them and no matter how often they've been refuted. The emphasis wasn't on violently "blowing them away," but, precisely, on the fact that they can't be "blown away" because those who advance them are too unaware to know that their arguments have been destroyed. [/quote]

Kind of beside the point, isn't it? It would have been easy enough to find another analogy that didn't involve violence. And yet....you settled on this one. The truth of the matter is that you and many other apologists really do seem to harbor violent revenge fantasies. Your little "joke" about killing me with an "assault rifle" is yet another piece of evidence against you.

stomping out weeds

Somebody somewhere may have used such an image, but I'm not familiar with it. On the other hand, I used a metaphor once of weeding a garden. Perhaps, in order to support the theme of "violence," that had to be transmogrified a bit?

I have evidence of John Tvedtnes exploding with profanity. Does that count as a sort of "verbal violence"?

Apologists implicitly invoke the threat of divine destruction for their enemies when they compare detractors to Book of Mormon apostates Nehor or Korihor, or to New Testament dissemblers Ananias and Sapphira, all of whom met violent ends.

Having edited/published one or two such references, and perhaps used one or two myself, I can say that their "violent ends" never played any role in my mind. (Of course, I'm probably lying. And, really, who should you believe about my internal mental states, my critics or me, a habitual liar?)

Well, you yourself have said that you often withhold your real feelings---which I guess we could characterize as "habitual lying". That really was quite an unfortunate slip-up on your part, Professor P. I mean, what are we supposed to think? You claim, on the one hand, that you were merely "joking" when you issued your "assault rifle" and "zombie hell" quips, and yet, on the other hand, you state that you are "withholding" your "real" feelings."

although it’s not the same thing to savage a person’s book as it is to kill them with a machine
gun, . . . the nature of the feelings that motivate both acts is qualitatively the same.”

I think that's simply ridiculous.

Yes, of course you do. You would have to in order to continue justifying your behavior.

Regarding John-Charles Duffy, by the way: Though we've even shared the platform at academic meetings (notably at the John Whitmer Historical Association's annual meeting, in Springfield, Illinois, a few years ago), he has gone out of his way to avoid shaking my hand or speaking to me. Which, I suppose, proves that I'm a very hostile person.

Given your penchant for violent fantasy and vicious ad hominem attack, I can hardly blame him.

One thing I liked about his article, though: The cartoon of me as "Dannibal Lecter." My friend Dan Wotherspoon, then the editor of Sunstone, kindly sent me the original. (This will prove to Master Scartch not that I have a sense of [often self-deprecating] humor, but that I revel in viciousness and cruelty.)

No, it just reinforces the sense of you trying to portray yourself as a "martyr" for the cause. "Look how mean they are to me! That must mean I'm right! The Church is true!"

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's the real world, Daniel, one in which stupidity is not overlooked and not rewarded with tenure.

You think that academia is an unreal world in which the reward for stupidity is tenure?

You and Joey should probably get together. He's fond of the old saw that "them that can do, do, while them that can't, teach."

They serve to protect bad teachers and stupid behaviors. And they certainly don't guarantee academic freedom.

I have my own criticisms of academic freedom in the contemporary American university, but I'm fascinated to see you coming out in direct overall opposition to tenure rules and the like that have been created over the past century or so in American higher education.

You know my opinion of BYU.

Yes, I do. And I believe you know that I consider your opinion of BYU silly and uninformed.

[_Mister Scratch]

They serve to protect bad teachers and stupid behaviors. And they certainly don't guarantee academic freedom.

I have my own criticisms of academic freedom in the contemporary American university, but I'm fascinated to see you coming out in direct overall opposition to tenure rules and the like that have been created over the past century or so in American higher education.

It used to be that tenure existed to prevent faculty from being fired due to holding unpopular views. For example, a professor sympathetic to communist thinking, or something like that. The notion of tenure protecting academic freedom at BYU seems like some kind of perverse joke, however. Obviously, those professors who should have been protected by such a system (e.g., Mike Quinn, Brian Evenson), were not---they got booted out for their "alternative" views.

So, apparently, Harmony is essentially right: tenure at BYU works to protect loyal apologists who act like jerks and fools. So long as they continue with their smearing of critics and their violent revenge fantasies, the Brethren will continue to overlook the fact that they are causing apostasies, and that they are reflecting very poorly on the Church and BYU.

[_harmony]

That's the real world, Daniel, one in which stupidity is not overlooked and not rewarded with tenure.

You think that academia is an unreal world in which the reward for stupidity is tenure?

Actually I think it's the other way around: most people behave until they have tenure, then they know it's almost impossible to fire them without a criminal charge (or in the case of BYU, until they oppose the Brethren), so the standards go down... and some of them do stupid things.

And the butthead incident was a stupid thing. Had he not had tenure, I wonder if he'd been more circumspect; since he had it, we'll never know if he'd have behaved less stupidly.

The guarantee of a position is something that is virtually unheard of in the real world. You know... the world of construction, retail sales, manufacturing, property management, engineering, not-for-profit agencies, etc., where there is no protection and no "tenure". Where stupidity is rewarded with a pink slip.

You and Joey should probably get together. He's fond of the old saw that "them that can do, do, while them that can't, teach."

And what does that have to do with tenure? Or stupidity? Or being fired for being stupid? Nothing.

I have my own criticisms of academic freedom in the contemporary American university, but I'm fascinated to see you coming out in direct overall opposition to tenure rules and the like that have been created over the past century or so in American higher education.

Why? My daughter's a teacher; she has tenure. She's a good teacher, and it irritates her a great deal that tenure protects the bad teachers in her building and in her district.

You know my opinion of BYU.

Yes, I do. And I believe you know that I consider your opinion of BYU silly and uninformed.

BYU pays your mortgage and puts food on your table; of course you consider my opinion silly and uninformed--it's diametrically opposed to yours. That doesn't mean I'm wrong though. That just means you see things from a different perspective.

[_Daniel Peterson]

More sophistry.

This has been a recurrent problem for you, Scartch. You might want to get a firmer handle on concepts like argument and sophistry.

You are probably thinking something like, "He didn't have to rewrite it. We just chose to do it." Sure you did, Prof. P.

Nope. Even that would be off base.

Yet another nice attempt at spinning you and your friends' malicious tactics, though.

Dang. My fiendish plans are being exposed.

The truth of the matter is that you and many other apologists really do seem to harbor violent revenge fantasies.

Mwahahahahaha!

Master Scartch, pop psychologist extraordinaire! Analysis at a distance? Free! Horoscopes and palm readings? Five dollars.

Your little "joke" about killing me with an "assault rifle" is yet another piece of evidence against you.

In Scartchworld, all things testify against me.

It was yet another watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.

I have evidence of John Tvedtnes exploding with profanity. Does that count as a sort of "verbal violence"?

Truthfully, I don't much care. I'm sure that, if I cared enough and if you weren't hiding behind a pseudonym while drawing on your alleged web of creepy confidential "informants," I could find cases where you've lost your temper, undertipped, run a stop sign, glanced at somebody else's hand in a card game, kept a pen that you found, failed to record a golf stroke, been insincere in a compliment, failed to keep a promise, or some such thing. Big deal. And I certainly wouldn't generalize from such an act on your part to the character and personality of all obsessive slanderers.

Besides, I've known John Tvedtnes since 1978. I don't need your creepy "dossiers" to have a sense of him, his personality, and his character.

Well, you yourself have said that you often withhold your real feelings---which I guess we could characterize as "habitual lying".

LOL. Someone less committed to defaming me might describe it as proceeding from a desire to be civil, or even kind.

That really was quite an unfortunate slip-up on your part, Professor P.

I'll bet you could scarcely contain yourself for glee when you realized how you could spin it!

I mean, what are we supposed to think? You claim, on the one hand, that you were merely "joking" when you issued your "assault rifle" and "zombie hell" quips, and yet, on the other hand, you state that you are "withholding" your "real" feelings. . . . your penchant for violent fantasy and vicious ad hominem attack . . . violent revenge fantasies"

If you really prefer to imagine me as a potential murderer, you need help.

I think you're a goofball. A professional counselor, though, might be able to come up with the specifically applicable technical term.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Had he not had tenure, I wonder if he'd been more circumspect; since he had it, we'll never know if he'd have behaved less stupidly.

He didn't have tenure at the time.

I've realized for quite a while now that not having read the book in question and/or not knowing any of the salient facts doesn't stop several people here from pontificating at great length, but, somehow, the continuing spectacle still amazes me.

BYU pays your mortgage and puts food on your table; of course you consider my opinion silly and uninformed--it's diametrically opposed to yours.

Now that is a classic ad hominem, a nice specimen of the fallacy of "poisoning the well."

That doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

Of course not. The fact that you're wrong rests on other grounds.

[_The Nehor]

If you really prefer to imagine me as a potential murderer, you need help.

I think you're a goofball. A professional counselor, though, might be able to come up with the specifically applicable technical term.

The government is trying to help people like Scratch. Here's a panel discussing new ways to aid them: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... government

[_Daniel Peterson]

The government is trying to help people like Scratch. Here's a panel discussing new ways to aid them: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... government

Thanks for sharing that. Sometimes, candidly, I become just a bit depressed about Scartch's prospects in society. It's reassuring to know that help is on its way.

Must kill Scartch. Blood. Violence. Delicious brutality. Guns. Knives. Bombs. Beautiful! Vengeance! Revenge! What lovely images. Must repress them. Mustn't let anybody know. But they're so pleasant!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

That made it seem as though you had read the review in question and saw the butthead thing. As you pointed out, you saw it discussed elsewhere, as I suspected and noted to Gad above.

I read the rewritten review. I have not seen the original--as you pointed out they are rare. So? The evidence of the original is ample. What is your point?

I would then ask you to provide this evidence.