Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Trevor]

And now you're buying into the conspiracy theory.

Congratulations.

There is no conspiracy theory, Simon.

[_Trevor]

His/her silence will only implicate the Maxwell Institute even more deeply.

Well, this person's interest in the MI's culpability did not seem to be accidental.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see that you participate on this particular blog. I am also disappointed, for many reasons, to see that you are the one who started this particular discussion.

All the same, best wishes to you and your family.

Maxwell, why won't you ask William Schryver to identify the members of the small group he referenced?

That would be more interesting, to me at least, than your no-doubt genuine disappointment with MsJack for starting this thread.

I agree 100% with this.

[_wenglund]

As a female academic, I would not feel comfortable addressing the academic arguments of someone with William's track towards women. On this forum, when women challenge his ideas, he attacks their ages, their bodies, their appearances, their sexuality, etc.

Here's a shocker, I am about to directly address your issues above. A couple of questions if I may:

Do you consider the atnosphere of this board to be conducive to academically addressing Will's academic arguments? Or, might there be better venue where your concerns may not come into play?

Were the women you mentioned above only academically challenging Will's ideas? Or, was there more or less to it?

Are you and the women not capable of academically challenging the alleged attacks on your age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality? In other words, can you not just ignore or simply point out the alleged ad hominems like we apologists must do nultiple times on a daily basis here?

In short, should you, as a female academic, be treated differently (better?) on this board than the men--like Will for example.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Since when is acknowledging that you don't know someone and therefore have no reason to trust or respect them tantamount to "conspiracy fever"? Can you explain how that works?

I can't, since it wasn't your distrust of Silver Hammer that I had in mind when I mentioned "conspiracy fever." In other words, I can't explain what I did not say.

However, contrary to the false conclusion you jumped to, my mention of "conspiracy fever" was in regards to you saying: "your very presence here appears to be a calculated distraction designed to put everyone on the defensive."

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to unravel your confusion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

His/her silence will only implicate the Maxwell Institute even more deeply.

Well, this person's interest in the MI's culpability did not seem to be accidental.

Funny how you said this right after claiming "there is no conspiracy."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

In short, should you, as a female academic, be treated differently (better?) on this board than the men--like Will for example.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Someone is treating Will as badly as he treats numerous women here?

[_Simon Belmont]

As a female academic, I would not feel comfortable addressing the academic arguments of someone with William's track towards women. On this forum, when women challenge his ideas, he attacks their ages, their bodies, their appearances, their sexuality, etc.

Here's a shocker, I am about to directly address your issues above. A couple of questions if I may:

Do you consider the atnosphere of this board to be conducive to academically addressing Will's academic arguments? Or, might there be better venue where your concerns may not come into play?

Were the women you mentioned above only academically challenging Will's ideas? Or, was there more or less to it?

Are you and the women not capable of academically challenging the alleged attacks on your age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality? In other words, can you not just ignore or simply point out the alleged ad hominems like we apologists must do nultiple times on a daily basis here?

In short, should you, as a female academic, be treated differently (better?) on this board than the men--like Will for example.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hate it when someone switches the 'm' and 'n' keys on my keyboard.

[_RockSlider]

Do you consider the atnosphere of this board to be conducive to academically addressing Will's academic arguments? Or, might there be better venue where your concerns may not come into play?

In my understanding, the op had nothing to do with "the academic arguments", but if woman participates, in an official and proper atmosphere would/could they effectively interact in the presentation of arguments.

Were the women you mentioned above only academically challenging Will's ideas? Or, was there more or less to it?

Nothing to do with Will's ideas, in regards to any of his academic material that is.

Are you and the women not capable of academically challenging the alleged attacks on your age, bodies, appearance, and sexuality? In other words, can you not just ignore or simply point out the alleged ad hominems like we apologists must do nultiple times on a daily basis here?

huh? In a proper academic atmosphere?

In short, should you, as a female academic, be treated differently (better?) on this board than the men--like Will for example.

What did it have to do with this board? Maybe you should stick with the pseudo babble.

[_moksha]

Does anyone else here suspect that a "gag order" has been placed on Will?

Not by the moderating staff here.

You know how they would handle blatant misogyny and so many naughty words at MAD.

What is surprising me is the level of apologetics involved with denial and obfuscation. Instead of denying that direct quotes were ever published when they are right there on the link for all open eyes to see, it might be better to explain that Will was speaking solely as a man and not as an apologist.