"Anti-Mormon": The Adventures of an Epithet

[_Mister Scratch]

EA, I have to tell you, my hat is off to you. Poor Professor Peterson has been totally checkmated on this issue. On the Stendahl's Rules thread, DCP admitted (in essence, in the midst of a gigantic maze of qualifications) that he refuses to treat critics with equality or fairness. Here, you have caught him saying that, on the one hand, he as seen the term "anti-Mormon" abused, and, on the other, that he somehow doesn't know a single person who abuses the term. Now, how can that be? I would be really interested in seeing him single out, say, a MAD poster who has abused the "epithet," but, of course, The Good Professor won't do it, for precisely the reason Harmony stated.

[_Daniel Peterson]

EA, I have to tell you, my hat is off to you. Poor Professor Peterson has been totally checkmated on this issue.

And coming from an objective, even charitable, observer like Mister Scratch, that verdict carries real authority.

On the Stendahl's Rules thread, DCP admitted (in essence, in the midst of a gigantic maze of qualifications) that he refuses to treat critics with equality or fairness.

!!!!!!

Here, you have caught him saying that, on the one hand, he as seen the term "anti-Mormon" abused, and, on the other, that he somehow doesn't know a single person who abuses the term. Now, how can that be?

It can't, of course. I expressly said the opposite.

I would be really interested in seeing him single out, say, a MAD poster who has abused the "epithet,"

It would be useful to the Scratchite agenda, in other words.

but, of course, The Good Professor won't do it, for precisely the reason Harmony stated.

I won't do it. But not for that reason.

(Mister Scratch has, elsewhere, derided attempts to read minds. Yet, somehow, he knows my unstated motives. This is one of the mysteries of Scratchite demonology.)

[_EAllusion]

It means that you're a dogmatist who regards failure to agree with you as prima facie evidence of moral defect or mental disability.

I see you still are attempting to grapple with the strawman that any disagreement with me triggers this response. That's simply not true. What matters here is the denial of something that should quite clear. At that point, something is wrong with how a person is thinking in a way that calls into question their character. It could be that they are unintelligent. It could be that they are lying. It could be that this is an issue they have trouble thinking clearly about due to emotional attachments. And so on.

That said, yeah, Pahoran isn't confused. He knows what he is doing. I do love it when you take this route in a conversation, though. You know, your generic defense against claiming someone is being disingenuous? I imagine your child denying he ate the last doughnut despite having its crumbs all over his face, sticky hands, and the smell of the doughnut on his clothes saying things like, "I didn't eat a doughnut. You're a dogmatist who regards any failure to agree with you as prima facie evidence of moral defect. You refuse to accept that people can be innocently mistaken or confused. You claim to have mind-reading powers so that you may know the thoughts and intentions of all around you."

I don't regard having one's judgment rendered unsound by personal biases to be a mental disability. If you do, that's unfortunate. If you'd like to further discuss your cavalier use of the term "mental disability" and why that might be offensive to the genuinely mentally disabled, let me know.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No thanks. I don't think I can recall having a useful discussion with you, or one that didn't end with you denigrating my character or intelligence.

It's too bad. I get the impression that you're capable of substantive conversation, intellectually at least.

Have a great day.




.

[_solomarineris]

But I don't agree that they do it in a calculatedly "two-faced" and dishonest way. Which, I guess, makes me a person of poor character in your strange world.

No, it makes you a person who cuts his friends slack he doesn't cut people who aren't his friends. Pretty normal, that.

Following this precept would be an absolute nightmare to adhere for any decent man&woman. My family, children, friends, employees... nobody can be exempt of my critique neither should I from theirs.