I surely hope my successful defense does not mar your admiration.
This is what is frankly astounding in all this – somehow Pahoran has convinced himself he has mounted a “successful defense”. It takes a remarkable capacity for self-deception to arrive at that conclusion.
His main “defense” has been to insist that he was really referring to never-mormon Joseph as the lying apostate, not schizophrenic Gino. To support that strained interpretation, he’s been forced to admit he utilized “imprecise language” (ie, language that clearly conveyed he was talking about Gino), “fuzzy” language (ie, using Joseph, who had never been LDS and wasn’t talking about the break-up of his own marriage as an example of an apostate who lies when he blames the church for his marital failure), the insistence that one could not talk about Gino’s attitude toward the marital break-up but that only the murders could rightfully be discussed (on a thread about how apostates lie when blaming the church for their marital failures) and “tactical ripostes” that weren’t intended to convey a “position” (!!!!)
All this time and tortured reasoning to try and prove he was talking about Joseph…. and never one word on why focusing on Joseph instead of Gino would somehow absolve him from the primary charge – that he exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to make a polemic point about apostates. Altering a detail about that exploitation doesn’t alter the act of exploitation.
That Pahoran is able to convince himself this resulted in a “successful defense” helps us to understand why he also believes that Dr. W’s use of this example helps demonstrate that there aren’t
any valid criticisms against the church. Pahoran clearly has a remarkable capacity for self-deception that goes beyond the average human inclination for self-deception. I think that’s also why he is apparently able to convince himself that I am far worse than he is when it comes to insults. This is a man who, almost with every other breath, accuses critics of lying. This is a man who regularly insinuates that critics cannot possibly be honest (and then objects when that is pointed out). This is a man who, on Z, accused the temperate Analytics of being an anti-mormon who would be “ok” with LDS being murdered. This is a man who, on this very thread, waxed eloquent about my “fish-wife” characteristics, and who claimed I had not “one shred of virtue”. And yet he is able to convince himself that I am far more vicious and insulting than he is. This is truly an impressive ability to self-deceive.