Simon Belmont wrote:So, you've listed six items here. For the sake of argument, let us suppose they are all offensive. Then, let us suppose that the single episode four years ago with Infymus was offensive to poor Infymus. Also, we will add in Tal Bachman and Steve Benson, who were obviously, at one time, offended.
So, about ten offensive things. Give or take a few (I'm not very familiar with the Benson episode(s)). This is a far cry from DrW saying that DCP offends almost daily.
No, not "about ten offensive things." There are hundreds of instances in the pages of the
Review alone, and the offensives multiply once you begin going through the thousands of posts on ZLMB, FAIR, MAD, MDD, MDB, RfM, and thecafeteria, and elsewhere in cyber-space.
So these things combined, when taken in context, necessitate more than five years of Internet stalking,
What "stalking"? I'd be careful here if I were you, Elder
(Moderator Note)in real life information deleted. "Stalking" is a legitimate crime, and falsely accusing someone of doing that could be legally actionable. Do you have evidence of people hacking DCP's Facebook? Or following him around his work or his home? Harassing him via email or PM? Do you have evidence of anything happening beyond criticism of his Mormon-apologetics-related postings and writings?
Again, I want to be clear: I am not here to "attack back" -- I'm done with that. I am genuinely curious.
Okay. So you're genuinely curious. Let's set aside the question of whether or not you think The Good Professor is guilty of hurting, offending, or insulting other people. Let's frame this in purely theoretical terms. Suppose you have an individual who has a sinecure, and who is essentially untouchable. This person has a network of similarly juiced-in friends, access to more or less free legal counsel, and a "fanbase" that will agree to virtually anything he says. Now suppose that this person embarks on a 25+ year career of doling out an endless string of insults directed both at his personal critics, and at people in the midst of having their lives torn to shreds. Suppose that this person uses his network of friends to stage 'sneak attacks' on critics, and that they actively and collectively plot to ruin their enemies reputations. Suppose that this person and his cabal of friends are ruthlessly mean, insulting, and vicious, and that they've been carrying out their attacks for some three decades.
What's your take on this, in terms of justice? (I'm assuming that you believe in the concept of justice.) If you were a judge, and this person came before you, what would be your ruling? In purely theoretical terms--setting aside completely the issue of whether or not this person has had to endure any attacks on his own, and completely setting aside the question of the extent to which the above description applies to DCP--what sentence would you render in this case?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14