Once again I've missed the fun...

[_Kevin Graham]

Am I alone in finding this remarkably hypocritical?

You usually are alone, aren't you?

I haven't just accused Pahoran of spin, I proved it.

[_Pahoran]

I don't deny that Will provided the ammo. But the fact is that MsJack, by her own up-front admission, decided to go after him only because he was getting somewhere in LDS apologetics.

Evidently LDS apologists must be like Caesar's wife, while anti-Mormons are allowed to be as swinish as they like.

Regards,
Pahoran

That's a distortion of what she said. She expressed concern that someone with a history of misogynist comments would create a climate in which women would be discouraged to participate in discussion.

Yes, I remember seeing something to that effect. I didn't reply to it at the time -- there are always too many posts for me to reply to them all anyway -- but I will address that point now.

I find it an astonishingly arrogant piece of feminist hubris to insist that no serious discussion on any subject should take place unless women "feel comfortable" participating, and that the women in question may predicate their comfort on the behaviour of a participant outside the venue of the proposed discussion. Such an approach assumes that the views of women are at all times the most important ones.

Now I've always thought -- silly me -- that when it comes to Mormon subjects, the views of Mormons ought to figure in there somewhere. Furthermore, if a Mormon actually has something original to say, then maybe having that Mormon's contribution heard might conceivably be more important than whether some random woman who might want to participate in the discussion would be comfortable talking to that Mormon.

Evidently such a view is not politically correct enough. Evidently, here in a forum whose sole reason for existence is "freedom of speech," the muzzling of a Mormon apologist for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality and content of his apologetics is a worthy goal, and its accomplishment is an achievement to be celebrated.

Isn't that right?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kevin Graham]

Isn't that right?

Not even close. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no one was trying to "muzzle" William? This wasn't about forbidding his freedom of speech, it was about holding him accountable for his despicable antics by bringing awareness to Mormons who had been catering to him as of late. She did them a favor as evidenced by the fact that they've distanced themselves from him. Your problem is that most Mormons agreed with her. You're virtually alone here trying to defend a despicable character.

Now stop trying to spin everything to your favor. It makes you look stupid.

[_beastie]

Yes, I remember seeing something to that effect. I didn't reply to it at the time -- there are always too many posts for me to reply to them all anyway -- but I will address that point now.

I find it an astonishingly arrogant piece of feminist hubris to insist that no serious discussion on any subject should take place unless women "feel comfortable" participating, and that the women in question may predicate their comfort on the behaviour of a participant outside the venue of the proposed discussion. Such an approach assumes that the views of women are at all times the most important ones.

Now I've always thought -- silly me -- that when it comes to Mormon subjects, the views of Mormons ought to figure in there somewhere. Furthermore, if a Mormon actually has something original to say, then maybe having that Mormon's contribution heard might conceivably be more important than whether some random woman who might want to participate in the discussion would be comfortable talking to that Mormon.

Evidently such a view is not politically correct enough. Evidently, here in a forum whose sole reason for existence is "freedom of speech," the muzzling of a Mormon apologist for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality and content of his apologetics is a worthy goal, and its accomplishment is an achievement to be celebrated.

Isn't that right?

Regards,
Pahoran

So LDS women would feel comfortable, say, challenging the ideas of a man who has a history of attacking women's personal appearances and sexual attractiveness in response to being challenged?

I guess the church has changed since I left.

[Guest]

Are you all guilty collectively?
Yes.

Is that clear?

I haven't read through ALL the posts in this thread, but did anyone mention the 2nd Article of the LDS Faith, yet....?

"We believe that man shall be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

This "collective guilt" SGW refers to is baffling.

Daniel2

[_stemelbow]

So LDS women would feel comfortable, say, challenging the ideas of a man who has a history of attacking women's personal appearances and sexual attractiveness in response to being challenged?

I guess the church has changed since I left.

The more ways its put, to give perspective to Will's comments, the worse his words seem to me. Why is anyone defending it? I truly hope Will just comes back and apologizes and from here on out treats women posters, even if he disagrees with them, respectfully. That's my dream...more for his sake than anything else.

[_Buffalo]

This is all from memory for me and I'm not going to dig into it at all, but it seems to me Wade was hassled for being gay when the topic of homosexuality wasn't even part of the discussion. Perhaps the posters who did so, if my memory is right on that, were treating hm that way because of his views on homosexuality, but I didn't get that impression as the time. I just thought it odd that someone would say he's gay and make many references to that, as if that was some sort of insult in and of itself. Oh well.

I thought he was gay because of his bizarre "lock and key" theories about homosexuality. To me it's not an insult - and it really shouldn't be to anyone.

[_Kishkumen]

This is all from memory for me and I'm not going to dig into it at all, but it seems to me Wade was hassled for being gay when the topic of homosexuality wasn't even part of the discussion. Perhaps the posters who did so, if my memory is right on that, were treating hm that way because of his views on homosexuality, but I didn't get that impression as the time. I just thought it odd that someone would say he's gay and make many references to that, as if that was some sort of insult in and of itself. Oh well.

It's true. I think the reason for this is because Wade has a history of involving himself in debates over homosexuality and whether a person's orientation can be changed. Add to that the fact that he is a very mature bachelor, and the jokes practically write themselves. It has gotten old. But, on the other hand, Wade loves to indulge in gender humor himself. One of his favorites was to call me "Nelly" from Little House on the Prairie. I thought that was pretty funny, since it was easy to turn around on him by accusing him of fantasizing about tweener girls.

Lots of gender humor flies around here. It is generally not wise for men to refer to womanhood disparagingly. Why some LDS guys can't figure that out is beyond me.

[_beastie]

Willpologists like Pahoran seem to forget that Will was delighted to see all his best work accumulated in one thread for easy access.

[_Pahoran]

I haven't read through ALL the posts in this thread, but did anyone mention the 2nd Article of the LDS Faith, yet....?

"We believe that man shall be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

Or perhaps, in honour of Beastie and MsJack, we should defer to the feminist version:

"We believe that men will be punished."

Regards,
Pahoran