How Saturday's Warrior and Johnny Lingo Hurt the Church

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

From my perspective, this perception snaps back toward you carrying the same message, only obverted to represent your ideologically formatted perception of the film and the "message" it contains as seen through your politically correct prism.

And?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I see. Could you perhaps provide a coherent, logical argument that would demonstrate why defending the film Johnny Lingo can be considered analogous to defending the genocidal slaughter of six million Jews?

Both postitions are intellectually and morally indefensible/dishonest. Droopy, did you really need someone to explain that to you?

Go back to bed my friend.

[_ajax18]

I think it speaks volumes about you that you see nothing wrong with Johnny Lingo. Tragic.

Being white, I'm not permitted to say anything negative about the polynesian culture without being branded a racist. What culture do you come from and how are you getting away with doing it?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Being white, I'm not permitted to say anything negative about the polynesian culture without being branded a racist. What culture do you come from and how are you getting away with doing it?

Ajax, you do know that Johnny Lingo has NOTHING to do with Polynesian culture, right? Please tell me that you are not using Johnny Lingo as a source for Polynesian culture. Please.

I wonder how many Mormons like ajax get their culture views of Polynesia from watching Johnny Lingo? Johnny Lingo might be more damaging than I previously thought. Good grief!

[_harmony]

Ajax, you do know that Johnny Lingo has NOTHING to do with Polynesian culture, right? Please tell me that you are not using Johnny Lingo as a source for Polynesian culture. Please.

I wonder how many Mormons like ajax get their culture views of Polynesia from watching Johnny Lingo? Johnny Lingo might be more damaging than I previously thought. Good grief!

Surely you knew this. After all, church movies can't lie.

[_Droopy]

From my perspective, this perception snaps back toward you carrying the same message, only obverted to represent your ideologically formatted perception of the film and the "message" it contains as seen through your politically correct prism.

And?

You'll figure it out eventually Wang.

[_Droopy]

I see. Could you perhaps provide a coherent, logical argument that would demonstrate why defending the film Johnny Lingo can be considered analogous to defending the genocidal slaughter of six million Jews?

Both positions are intellectually and morally indefensible/dishonest. Droopy, did you really need someone to explain that to you?

So, let me get this straight, defending the point about human relationships Johnny Lingo is making is intellectually dishonest? Not only this, it is...morally dishonest as well.

But this is not all, it is the equivalent of support and assent to the Holocaust.

Now, would you be kind enough to respect my first question here and provide a "coherent, logical argument," as I asked, showing why anybody should believe these claims?

Let me spell it out for you. You have here set yourself the task of a logical, evidentially connected argument demonstrating compelling reasons to believe that firstly, defending the film Johnny Lingo is intellectually and morally dishonest (not just wrong, but willfully dishonest) and secondly, that the proportion of moral dishonesty involved is equal in weight to that required to defend the Holocaust.

I'm sure you probably think that a sufficient degree of politically correct public moral piousness exempts you from having to actually defend you positions rationally. au contraire, my friend. Stop the drive-by responses and demonstrate why it should be believed your arguments here hold any water.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

So, let me get this straight, defending the point about human relationships Johnny Lingo is making is intellectually dishonest? Not only this, it is...morally dishonest as well.

Yes.

I'm sure you probably think that a sufficient degree of politically correct public moral piousness exempts you from having to actually defend you positions rationally. au contraire, my friend. Stop the drive-by responses and demonstrate why it should be believed your arguments here hold any water.

Please read the OP, Droopy. Thanks my friend.

[_ajax18]

Ajax, you do know that Johnny Lingo has NOTHING to do with Polynesian culture, right? Please tell me that you are not using Johnny Lingo as a source for Polynesian culture. Please.

I wonder how many Mormons like ajax get their culture views of Polynesia from watching Johnny Lingo? Johnny Lingo might be more damaging than I previously thought. Good grief!

Actually I lived amongst Polynesians for a time. Watch National Geographic and you'll see that wives being brought and sold are a part of nearly all the primitive/ancient cultures that exist today. Are you telling me that all sale of wives for cows in Polynesia originated from Mormonism? Secondly I never claimed to speak for Mormonism. How do you know I'm Mormon?

Women as chattel is just as much or more prevalent in any other part of American culture or any culture that ever existed. A few men manage to come up with some money or power and do business with women out selling an attractive body and sex. So it's diamond rings, money, a job promotion, royalty, the financial rights/gurantees for women that come with marriage, or whatever. For Johnny Lingo it was cows, it's still the same thing. But you can only criticize the practice if it is a part of a caucasian culture. Johnny Lingo would have been off limits if he weren't Mormon.

[_Droopy]

Please read the OP, Droopy. Thanks my friend.

I did. There is no philosophical argument there supporting your claims, only the explication of the claims themselves, which is why I have asked you so support them with cogent arguments, which you continue to avoid as the thread progresses.