Re: Defenders of the Faith on MDB who have the best arguments

[_The Nehor]

He simply doesn't want to.

That I can understand. When the evidence is heavily favored against you one should stay away from providing substance so as not to be shot down all the time. :)

Are you under the impression that most of the critics here engage defenders of the faith in rational argument when presented with the opportunity?

Honestly I think Liz picked me because she has been around long enough to remember when I tried to hold real discussions. I'd say something and get flippant responses from Schmo and Merc, an insulting pic from Infymus, a straight insult from Porter, and your standard Scratch derail trying to make it about the people involved.

So I stopped. The way to win here is cheap word-games, dragging out old posts to discredit your opponent, and flippancy.

It's like a political election. Everyone here insists that this kind of behavior is bad and the board would be better without it but the lowest common denominator wins anyways. You can say this is due to loose moderation, the subject matter, or the people involved but it is what it is.

[_asbestosman]

The way to win here is cheap word-games, dragging out old posts to discredit your opponent, and flippancy.

I feel like you're trying to explain slapstick comedy to one of the Three Stooges (although there's more than three around here).

Hi Buffalo! Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you.

[_Kishkumen]

He simply doesn't want to. Nehor has knowledge and the capability of generating substance, but for him it's much more enjoyable to poke fun at critics or simply to stir the pot.

I am not sure Nehor is the most insightful LDS scholar. His take on Mormonism seems pretty shallow.

[_cacheman]

My vote goes for Nevo. He knows his stuff and has managed to avoid board drama for years.

[_Kishkumen]

My vote goes for Nevo. He knows his stuff and has managed to avoid board drama for years.

Nevo is the man. No doubt about it.

[_Themis]

Are you under the impression that most of the critics here engage defenders of the faith in rational argument when presented with the opportunity?

Certainly more then the defenders, and most who do provide substance don't worry about those who do not, nor does it change their behavior. Take responsibly for you own actions, instead of blaming others for yours. by the way it is not really about winning anything.

[_EAllusion]

Of those listed, Nevo.

[_The Nehor]

Are you under the impression that most of the critics here engage defenders of the faith in rational argument when presented with the opportunity?

Certainly more then the defenders,

lol.

and most who do provide substance don't worry about those who do not,

Indeed, they start substance topics and then watch as defenders are hammered by their inbred brethren in silence.

nor does it change their behavior.

Amazin.

Take responsibly for you own actions,

I do.

instead of blaming others for yours.

If I try to hold an intelligent discussion with apes it is not blaming the apes to give up discussing Virgil's lesser known works and hurl poo back at them instead. It is taking the audience and setting into account.

by the way it is not really about winning anything.

Agreed but some here haven't figured that out. Makes them fun to play with.

[_moksha]

How about a thread on which apologist has the best butt? I am leaning strongly toward David Bokovoy.

[_asbestosman]

How about a thread on which apologist has the best butt?

Wade has my vote.