Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[Guest]

-

[_Kevin Graham]

Hasa has a great point. If the original post excluded reference to the C word, what would his supporters be complaining about? They'd be forced to address the real issue, or just shut up.

In the case of Pahoran, he saw an opportunity to create a side show about calling and election, so he jumped on it.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks Kishkumen I'm glad you enjoyed the post. As for the handle I probably have to agree with you. Does it mean no worries for the rest your days?

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Oh, I ceased worrying about God when I realized that he is not a human LDS priesthood holder scrutinizing every corner of my life. That was, of course, my own misperception.

I don't worry about God much at all. No need to address him with my anger. If I have a reason to be angry, then that is probably my own damn fault or just life.

Oh, and you are welcome.

[_Chap]

I have somehow managed to read the whole of 57 pages of this...

Hasa Diga Eebowai

What a great post. What an unfortunate handle.

Oh, I see .... That song from the Book of Mormon musical.

[_malaise]

This will be my last post in this thread. It is so full of fail that continuing to post in it is bad your health.

I don't think this analogy holds. Having an abortion results in the termination of the fetus something like 99% of the time,

If there is a 70% chance of something happening if I take action X then I am responsible for deciding that it is an acceptable outcome should I take action X. You don't need 100% certainty to be morally culpable for some action you have taken. Say I drink and drive. There is not a 100% chance I will kill someone, but if I do them I am responsible for my actions.

I object to the term baby. Babies are BORN. Fetuses are not.

and even the ones that survive the abortion are sometimes left for dead by a clinic that doesn't want hundreds of thousands of dollars in neonatal medical bills. Only a terribly ignorant woman would have an abortion and then be surprised that her baby died from it.

In contrast, I had no idea what the results would be of my thread here. I envisioned any number of outcomes, and the possibility of William's work being canceled struck me as a distant one. After all, his behavior on these forums hadn't stopped him from presenting at FAIR last year or receiving glowing press coverage from the Mormon Times, so why should it have stopped him from publishing with the MI? The note I received last week informing me that his work was being canceled came as something of a shock.

So, you wanted to damage his reputation, but you expected nothing to come of it. Sure. okay....

If you agree that I had as much right to complain about William's behavior as he had to engage in it, and you agree that I can hardly be blamed for the existence of what you call a "PC culture" where people are disciplined in one area of there lives for engaging in disreputable behavior in other areas of their lives, then I'm not sure who it is you're complaining to.

You can blamed for supporting it, like many others on this board.

For my own part, I think it's a bad idea to allow people who privately engage in lewd, misogynist, or sexually harassing behavior to serve in other "official" capacities because doing so serves to discourage women from working with them and approaching them, thus creating fewer opportunities for women. There may be exceptions to this where stellar candidates are concerned.

polluting the work environment is different than saying things on a message board outside of work

[_MsJack]

If there is a 70% chance of something happening if I take action X then I am responsible for deciding that it is an acceptable outcome should I take action X.

Talk about "full of fail." Are you now saying that abortions only have a 70% chance of terminating the pregnancy, or did you run the numbers and figure out that my thread had a 70% chance of terminating William's upcoming publications? Would you care to post your math on that?

Or in other words, your abortion analogy was stupid. That's not my fault.

I object to the term baby. Babies are BORN. Fetuses are not.

I'm a mother and I've had a child and I'll call what grows inside me a "baby" if I damn well please. Please take your "PC nonsense" somewhere else.

So, you wanted to damage his reputation, but you expected nothing to come of it. Sure. okay....

Not what I said. I know your argument is in critical condition here, but you don't need to make stuff up.

You can blamed for supporting it, like many others on this board.

So it's not my fault that the PC culture exists, but I'm still at fault for supporting it which would mean perpetuating its existence? Yeah, you really didn't think that one through.

polluting the work environment is different than saying things on a message board outside of work

Except that women can learn about one's behavior in either place and be intimidated by it either way.

[Guest]

Hasa Diga Eebowai ~ I think that it is unfortunate that William and his defenders and Eric spent so much time making hash over "the c-word incident." To be honest, when I was composing the thread, I thought there were two places where William might try to deny having said what was said altogether:

(1) The c-word incident
(2) The single post that was made under the "WilliamSchryver" handle

Sure enough, William did initially deny both, only to later admit that the words posted by WilliamSchryver were in fact his. This happened when jon asked him about the words themselves rather than the handle they were posted under.

If I could do the entire thread again, I'm not sure I would include the "c-word incident" again---not because I think it didn't happen, but because of the immense distraction it was turned into on account of being the only place where William's original words weren't preserved for all to see. Then again, if he hadn't been distracted by "the c-word incident," I have to wonder if he would have blundered into admitting that WilliamSchryver was him.

At the same time, I don't really agree with you that William's defenders would have been forced to address the issues if only I hadn't included that one example. I think it's pretty clear that William and his defenders never intended on addressing the issues, and if they hadn't obfuscated over "the c-word incident," I think they'd have tried to obfuscate over something else.

I'm not going to change anything about the OP or try to split the "c-word incident" into its own discussion. I have a feeling that any changes I might make would only result in William's defenders criticizing me because I realized my "lies" had been found out (or some nonsense like that). My plan for the blog version had been to move "the c-word incident" into an appendix and note the different testimonies about what happened. The blog version also would have had about a dozen more examples that have come to my attention through this thread or are new comments from William since this thread.

But that isn't going to happen now.

[_consiglieri]

So, you wanted to damage his reputation, but you expected nothing to come of it. Sure. okay....

Nobody damaged Will's reputation but Will himself.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Dr. Shades]

The blog version also would have had about a dozen more examples that have come to my attention through this thread or are new comments from William since this thread.

But that isn't going to happen now.

I vote that it should.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hasa has a great point. If the original post excluded reference to the C word, what would his supporters be complaining about? They'd be forced to address the real issue, or just shut up.

In the case of Pahoran, he saw an opportunity to create a side show about calling and election, so he jumped on it.

As I have noted a few time. I was willing to ignore the C word issue. Even without is Will's other behavior was enough to put him in the proverbial poop house.