Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Let's see if I can summarize what happened.

---Both DCP and Harmony engaged in some rather unpleasant, distasteful, and mean-spirited dialogue.
---Both had clear, well-articulated reasons for doing so.
---Harmony admitted that she'd engaged in this, and she apologized.
---DCP "cheerfully" admitted that he threw out slanderous insults, but, rather than apologizing, he declared "martyr status" and attempted to justify his uncouth behavior.

Does that sum it up?

On a sidenote: I do think that DCP makes a valid point. Sure, the Taliban may be Muslim, but they in no way reflect what mainstream Islam is all about. It's sort of similar to the way that Mormonism may be Christian, but it in no way reflects what mainstream Christianity is all about. I'm glad that DCP and I agree on this.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:Does that sum it up?

Of course not, silly fellow.

Scratch has arrived. There goes the neighborhood.

Happily, I'm off. We're getting together with some Arabist friends to celebrate the safe return of the military-officer son of one our academic colleagues from (of all places) Afghanistan.

I'll bet, this being Mormon Utah, that he scarcely notices any difference between Bagram and Orem.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Does that sum it up?

Of course not, silly fellow.



Well, then, feel free to enlighten me. What I don't understand about you, Dan, is you utter inability to acknowledge your own bad behavior. Why is that so difficult for you? You claim *I* am bizarre, and yet, you are ignoring one of the basic tenets of the Church here---and you do it pathologically. Why not just apologize for your harshness? What's so difficult about that?
_marg

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _marg »

Daniel Peterson wrote: LOL. You probably really don't get it.

You sought to compare nineteenth-century Utah with Afghanistan under the Taliban. Martha Hughes Cannon illustrates, in one nice neat case, the utter fatuousness of your equation.


No DCP I was talking about current Mormon practice, today..in polygamous communities. They are following true Mormonism as J. Smith set up and B.Young continued. The version you currently follow is not the one J. Smith promoted, and the only reason your version doesn't have polygamy is because the gov't put a stop to it, not because the church on its own freely chose to.


Martha Hughes Cannon, Mormon plural wife. University of Michigan-trained physician. Just like one of the women under the Taliban, right? Lots of female Afghan physicians went to medical school under the Taliban, right?


I didn't bring up the Taliban. It's really quite irrelevant Dan, that one women in a polygamous marriage was not down trodden & restricted from education. She is not an indicator of the typical women in a polygamous marriage. So being fond of her story and bringing her up as an example of women in polgamy is rather deceitful on your part, you know better. For the majority of women in polygamy and I'm not going back to 19 century, no need to, I'm talking currently they are treated as chattel, to serve the men, receive little education and skills to enable leaving the system and are indoctrinated into this lifestyle often from a young age, many traded between polygamous communites to be wives at young ages often 14, 15, & 16.

Martha Hughes Cannon, Mormon plural wife. Defeated her husband for the state senate. Just like one of the women under the Taliban, right? Lots of Afghan women successfully challenged their husbands' political leadership under the Taliban, right?


We don't know what a country without separation of state and religion under Mormon leadership would look like. We do know though that in polygamous communites in America currently how women are treated and THEY ARE NOT EQUAL TO MEN, they are treated abusively. And they are the followers of true Mormonism the one J. Smith envisioned.

Martha Hughes Cannon, Mormon plural wife. First female state senator in the United States. Just like one of the women under the Taliban, right? Lots of Afghan women held high political offices under the Taliban, right?


Apparently this story you are so fond of, you must use illustrate that polygamy is not all that bad for women.

No doubt not every single Mormon woman in polygamy suffered and was downtrodden. In fact, some first wives would used their sister wives as slaves, so they probably had it comparitively pretty good.

Nineteenth-century Utah. Just like Afghanistan under the Taliban. You heard it here first. From marg.



The fact of the matter is, if it weren't for the government stepping in and making polygamy illegal it is unlikely the Mormon church would have ever denounced it. If it weren't for separation of church and state, we probably wouldn't have a democracy, certainly not as we know it.

My question to Harmony was to find out what was, or whether there was much difference between how women are viewed in Islam versus Mormonism.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _harmony »

Daniel Peterson wrote:You had been irrelevantly and unjustly and falsely accusing me of indifference to suffering, poverty, and oppression for quite a while before I called you on it.


Let's see... what did I actually say?

From Page 2

harmony wrote:Obviously these people {the referenced websites}think differently than you do, Daniel. And somehow I think they may actually know.


That's bad? That someone might actually have on-the-ground knowledge, and disagree with you?

Again, Page 2:
You said:
Daniel Peterson wrote:As for Harmony: Afghanistan under the Taliban definitely forbade the education of post-pubescent girls. Post-Taliban Afghanistan absolutely does not.


Then I said:
harmony wrote:Try again. It appears that your "post-Taliban" utopia for Afghanistan's women was of pitifully small duration.

Quote:
17 February 2009: Women's education has been severely compromised in Afghanistan as a resurgent Taliban has practised a policy of intimidation of female students. Women, who make up a significant proportion of Afghanistan's population, have been killed, burned and threatened for attending school. Many teachers have been executed in remote villages by the Taliban during the latest resurgence

That quote is less than 2 months ago and speaks to a "resurgent" Taliban. Unless I'm much mistaken, the Taliban is Islamic.


Oh wait! I'm acknowledging that the Taliban is Islamic! And in Afghanistan, and resurgent, 'way back on page 2. Page frickin' 2!

Well, shoot. That kinda kicks your snide little comment:

Daniel Peterson wrote:And now, just as she pretended earlier today that I was the one questioning her concern for the poor and the downtrodden and harshly judging her as indifferent to them, she's now pretending that she's always been distinguishing between mainstream Islam and the Islam of the Taliban -- despite the fact that this thread is entirely open for examination by anybody, so that anybody will easily be able to see that she's misrepresenting it, that she repeatedly refused to grant that distinction when I made it.


right to the curb, doesn't it? I was making the distinction back on Page 2!

Page 3 is wholly devoted to other posters in discussion with you, although that still didn't stop you from misrepresenting my point.

On Page 4, I start with:

harmony wrote:Whatever helps you sleep at night, Daniel.

Afghanistan, by whatever faction is in control in any given moment on any given acre of land, has a 23% literacy rate for women. According to the same source, http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/, 30% of girls have access to education. That obviously translates to something different from what you've presented here.

Unless, of course, you're saying you know more about Afghan women than they know themselves.


You counter with this little gem:

Daniel Peterson wrote:But, once again, this doesn't mean that Islam as such opposes the education of women, let alone that Islam as such punishes the education of women.


I then reminded you of the burned schools, murdered teachers and school girls and asked you:
harmony wrote:So... "poisoned to death" doesn't count as punishes? "denied basic education" doesn't count as opposes? What does punishes mean to you? Does poisoned mean punished? What does opposes mean to you? Does denied mean opposed?


You said Islam doesn't punish women or school girls for an education.

I asked for clarification, and you... well... you came back with this gem:
Daniel Peterson wrote:Is it even possible to have a real conversation with you?


The discussion is starting to heat up.

Then you come back with THIS gem:
Daniel Peterson wrote:Please try to remember that the government in Kabul, which you yourself say wants to educate women, is just as Muslim as rural Afghanistan is.


Muslim... no differentiation between Taliban Muslim and regular Joe kind of Muslim. YOU said "the government in Kabul, which you yourself say wants to educate women, is just as Muslim as rural Afghanistan is."

If you can't keep it straight and clearly state what you mean, how am I supposed to? You're the expert, aren't you?

Then Scratch and CC distract you for the rest of Page 4.

On page 5, after some discussion about communism's failures, we get back to it:

harmony wrote:Now what religion rules Afghanistan, and is especially entrenched in rural Afghanistan? Oh yes. Islam.


Please refer up just a bit, and you'll see why I said what I just said in this post. I'm quoting you, Daniel:
Daniel Peterson wrote:Please try to remember that the government in Kabul, which you yourself say wants to educate women, is just as Muslim as rural Afghanistan is.


You make no differentiation between Muslim and Taliban brand Muslim, so neither did I. You, after all, are the expert on Islam on this board, right? So when I quote you, follow your lead, I can be sure I'm giving accurate information, right?

Onward...

I say a very mean thing a little further down. Please apologize to your friend for me.

harmony wrote:Your friend, the Minister of Education, is doing a piss poor job, Daniel. And he's a Muslim.


It should read: It appears that your friend isn't very successful at his job. I shouldn't have said "piss poor". That was not nice.

And then you come unglued.

harmony wrote:Perhaps it would be most correct to say that traditional conservative patriarchal Islam, which holds power in certain sections of the globe, including most of Afghanistan, does not allow education for women and girls. That way, your more progressive friends can be held blameless for the appalling literacy rates in much of Afghanistan, the burned schools become not their problem, the girls killed for attending school become not their problem. And you don't have to acknowledge the plight of Afghan women either. A win-win for you and your Islamic friends! Of course, 87% of Afghan women are still illiterate, but your Islamic friends can wash their hands of the situation and never worry about blaming their conservative, traditional, patriarchal religious counterparts.

Stay away, far away, from a career in social justice, Daniel. You're much better suited for academia or politics.


I obviously touched a nerve here. You went on your oft quoted rant, calling me names, disparaging my character, slaughtering and sacrificing sheep on the altar of my perfidy.

I'm still trying figure out which part of my post really set you off. But whatever it was, I apologize.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _asbestosman »

Mister Scratch wrote:Why not just apologize for your harshness? What's so difficult about that?

Sometimes harshness is the right thing to do. You of all people should believe that. You are very harsh to Daniel Peterson. You just happen to think that Daniel Peterson deserves it while Harmony does not.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _Mister Scratch »

asbestosman wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Why not just apologize for your harshness? What's so difficult about that?

Sometimes harshness is the right thing to do. You of all people should believe that. You are very harsh to Daniel Peterson. You just happen to think that Daniel Peterson deserves it while Harmony does not.


No, not quite, ABman. Harmony apologized, after all. DCP did not.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _asbestosman »

Mister Scratch wrote:
asbestosman wrote:Sometimes harshness is the right thing to do. You of all people should believe that. You are very harsh to Daniel Peterson. You just happen to think that Daniel Peterson deserves it while Harmony does not.


No, not quite, ABman. Harmony apologized, after all. DCP did not.

Missing my point. If harshness was the right thing to do (I'm not saying either way), then no apology is necessary. Obviously Daniel Peterson thinks it was the right thing to do. Given his recount of events, I might suppose he's correct. It's not because of harshness that Daniel Peterson should apologize, or will you apologize to him for your harshness? No? Then you have no grounds to demand an apology. Harmony might, but you don't.

If Harmony's account is correct, it started over a misunderstanding / miscommunication. If that's the case, then it's a pity, but such is life. If Daniel Peterson is not convinced, I don't necessarily think that means he's nasty--certainly no nastier than you are when you assume the worst of him with respect to Mike Quinn, etc.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _Mister Scratch »

asbestosman wrote:Missing my point. If harshness was the right thing to do (I'm not saying either way), then no apology is necessary. Obviously Daniel Peterson thinks it was the right thing to do. Given his recount of events, I might suppose he's correct. It's not because of harshness that Daniel Peterson should apologize, or will you apologize to him for your harshness?


Sure. But I'd expect some reciprocity, naturally.

If Harmony's account is correct, it started over a misunderstanding / miscommunication. If that's the case, then it's a pity, but such is life. If Daniel Peterson is not convinced, I don't necessarily think that means he's nasty--certainly no nastier than you are when you assume the worst of him with respect to Mike Quinn, etc.


When has DCP ever apologized for anything---even if only to be on the safe side? Never, as far as I know. I'm kind of curious as to why this is.
_marg

Re: Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

Post by _marg »

DCP wrote:Here's a story I'm fond of: The first female state senator in the United States was Martha Hughes Cannon, a physician, who defeated her polygamist husband for the Utah state senate in 1896.


Looking into Martha Hughes Cannon, briefly I learned she certainly was not the average woman, nor the typical female raised in a polygamous family. One reason is she didn't come from a polygamous family. So she was educated and not indoctrinated to be subservient to men and a baby maker.


After she became a doctor she married the superintendant of the hospital, she was 27 at the time, and I believe he had about 5 other wives. She didn't quit working, She was completely independent continued on with her career, even went to Europe for a couple of years to live with her one child at the time. I don't know if she ever lived with him and his wives.

Sure I can see this woman marrying a polygamous man, and in such a relationship she could be independent even more so even than in a monogamous relationship. She certainly was not the average women.

For DCP to bring her up as an example of women in polygamy is despicable.
Post Reply