Scottie wrote: The argument basically boiled down to, "I can totally see him being addicted to porn because..... well, just because!" That isn't going to fly on MDD.
[/quote]
The argument may fly here, but for the sake of rationality, and etiquette I'd hope people would learn to take a higher road.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Scottie wrote: The argument basically boiled down to, "I can totally see him being addicted to porn because..... well, just because!" That isn't going to fly on MDD.
The argument may fly here, but for the sake of rationality, and etiquette I'd hope people would learn to take a higher road.
It would help if you people understood the difference between an argument and speculation.
Never once did I get the impression he was trying to argue that Holland had a porn problem. Something about the phrases, "I have to even privately speculate sometimes", "I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite" and "I disclaim any knowledge of his private life" tipped me off.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:It would help if you people understood the difference between an argument and speculation.
Never once did I get the impression he was trying to argue that Holland had a porn problem. Something about the phrases, "I have to even privately speculate sometimes", "I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite" and "I disclaim any knowledge of his private life" tipped me off.
Oh brother...why did he think Holland was addicted to porn at some point? Well because he's so vehemently opposed to it of course. His argument then is:
--if one is so vehemently opposed to porn as he thinks Holland is then, that one is probably addicted to or has a problem with porn.
As it is speculation can carry within it an argument.
who cares anyway? so many posters here can deflect and run down any tangent it seems.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:Not only was he out of line, it seems to be but he was unreasonable.
He complains that Holland probably has a porn addiction problem because he's so opposed to porn, but then he goes on to explain how Holland's views aren't indicative of someone who has such a problem. Essentially he's claiming Holland doesn't know what he's talking about. It seems like he defeated himself.
I personally don't see why anyone here cares if the church takes a hard stance opposing pornography. I personally appreciate the hard stance. I do think pornography is a problem.
There's a reason why Utah is the number one porn state in the nation, Stem.
I agree, though. Speculating that Holland is a porn hound was out of line.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Doctor Scratch wrote:All that said, the General Authorities' talks on porn have *always* been aimed at *all* men. The clear implication has always been that all men are vulnerable. Any man--including one of the Lord's Anointed--is theoretically vulnerable to the temptations of porn. At least, that is what the GA's declarations would have us believe.
Nope. Generally speaking, they're too old. If y'all haven't figured it out already, just put your minds to it: that system eventually stops functioning (hence, the fact that Viagra is the most prescribed and consumed drug in America, If I recall correctly). I think the Brethren's focus on pornography is more a function of envy than anything else.
So I have to wonder how the actions of the MDD mods are in keeping with these views.
The ruling was within their rules. No sense in trying to get around that.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Buffalo wrote:There's a reason why Utah is the number one porn state in the nation, Stem.
Well, I'm sure you know what the reason is right? I think I did hear some years ago that Utah had the most purchases for on-line porn per capita than any other state. I don't know if that means we're (I live in Utah) the number one porn state though.
I agree, though. Speculating that Holland is a porn hound was out of line.
I appreciate how reasonable you can be.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:There's a reason why Utah is the number one porn state in the nation, Stem.
Well, I'm sure you know what the reason is right? I think I did hear some years ago that Utah had the most purchases for on-line porn per capita than any other state. I don't know if that means we're (I live in Utah) the number one porn state though.
The reason, I believe, is that the unprecedented amount of shaming the church does to try to counteract porn usage actually makes it worse. It's a psychological thing. See:
Buffalo wrote:The reason, I believe, is that the unprecedented amount of shaming the church does to try to counteract porn usage actually makes it worse. It's a psychological thing. See:
Well if that's your thinking you have a lot of dots to connect, right? I mean to go from Utah's porn problem is because of the church's stance on porn is a tough thing to conclude based on the piece-meal approach you've taken, right? Whose to say any person in Utah has more of an addiction to porn than any non-LDS in another state? Whose to say the people of Utah have more of a problem than people of any state? All we can reasonably conclude is that some study done years ago named Utah as the place that has the most on-line porn purchases than any other state per capita. Porn is accessed freely, and is purchased outside of on-line--just for your reference point.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Some Schmo wrote:It would help if you people understood the difference between an argument and speculation.
Never once did I get the impression he was trying to argue that Holland had a porn problem. Something about the phrases, "I have to even privately speculate sometimes", "I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite" and "I disclaim any knowledge of his private life" tipped me off.
Which is akin to saying, "I don't mean to offend you, but damn you stink and you're kids are ugly!", and then wondering why the person got offended! After all, he said he didn't mean to offend you so you have no right being offended!
He flat out accused Holland of having a problem, and then tried to cover it up. It doesn't work that way.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Buffalo wrote:The reason, I believe, is that the unprecedented amount of shaming the church does to try to counteract porn usage actually makes it worse. It's a psychological thing. See:
Well if that's your thinking you have a lot of dots to connect, right? I mean to go from Utah's porn problem is because of the church's stance on porn is a tough thing to conclude based on the piece-meal approach you've taken, right? Whose to say any person in Utah has more of an addiction to porn than any non-LDS in another state? Whose to say the people of Utah have more of a problem than people of any state? All we can reasonably conclude is that some study done years ago named Utah as the place that has the most on-line porn purchases than any other state per capita. Porn is accessed freely, and is purchased outside of on-line--just for your reference point.
Paying for porn means that you're more than just casually looking up a few key words once in a while. It means you're invested in it. I didn't mention addiction purposefully, because I think the church tends to characterize casual use as addiction, when in reality I think addiction is rare. But it's tough to have addiction without a lot of shame involved as well. Shame perpetuates self-destructive behaviors.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.