Mormon Dialouge - Moderation Undefined

[_Doctor Scratch]

Your using bigot without really understanding what it is.

Today it is cheap trick to force people to ignore the elephant in the room. Homosexuality has been given a special pass to be untouchable. No one can question what it is, where it came from, or any potential detriment to society it may cause, because any opinion other than the agenda's opinion has been labeled with emotional rhetoric.

The reality is you are far more bigoted, as you are by the definition, intolerant of competing believes or ideas.

JMS

I think you're missing EA's point, jskains. He's saying that you *are* permitted to "question," and in fact he said that you should be permitted to do that. What you seem to be complaining about here is whatever fallout you may have to endure for your foot-in-mouth disease. For me, the most salient example of you doing this was your ridiculous and rage-fueled comment on Natalie Collins's blog, where you talked about blacks "eating watermelon," and you mused about the possibility of penning a novel entitled, Trapped by the N*****s. Quite disgusting, in my opinion, but nonetheless, you've got every right to say such things. Indeed, your giving voice to such things provides a great deal of insight into your character and mindset.

It's good to see you back here on the board, by the way. I hope you've been well.

[_jskains]

I do find it sad this is where we are in society. We have come to the basic premise that instead of having direct debate, we have character assassinations.

Liberals are the best at it. Instead of any mature debate, it quickly derails into childish name calling. I understand Liberals have been trained by the ideas from "Rules for Radicals", which has basically trumpeted the idea that character assassination is perfectly fine if it gets your ideas won over, but I for one find it ugly and degrading.

Shaming is the most active of all of these character attacks. When Sean Penn addressed Prop 8 inappropriately on the Oscar stage, he "shamed" everyone. It is an emotional strike to silence the opposition rather than actually having to engage them.

I remember watching the debates over welfare many years ago, which shaped my disgust with this style of emotional tactics. A representative from Florida talked about the alligator problem in his state. He discussed how the people would start feeding the alligators, causing them to be too dependent on people, often losing their hunting desires, and how when people suddenly stopped feeding them, they died. After an interesting and well thought out argument, he sat down, followed by some angry liberal woman from California (surprise), who stomped up, and instead of directly arguing against his well thought out position, she simply pounded the podium and screamed "Don't feed the Alligators, but feed the children!"... To which many applauded.

I realize that emotional rhetoric has a very "rally" like effect. It is frankly what Hitler used to rally up Germany. Often his ideas might not be really something most would support, but that emotional rally can often get anyone to back an idea. It can be almost hypnotic.

But in the end, we are snuffing logic for emotion. We are no longer thinking these things through but being caught up in the emotional high that protestors and ralliers whip up...

And in the end, I think it will continue to erode the democratic process of this country. Because in the end, the debates will end and it will simply be who can rally their troops better with emotional trash talk.

JMS

[_jskains]

I think you're missing EA's point, jskains. He's saying that you *are* permitted to "question," and in fact he said that you should be permitted to do that. What you seem to be complaining about here is whatever fallout you may have to endure for your foot-in-mouth disease. For me, the most salient example of you doing this was your ridiculous and rage-fueled comment on Natalie Collins's blog, where you talked about blacks "eating watermelon," and you mused about the possibility of penning a novel entitled, Trapped by the N*****s. Quite disgusting, in my opinion, but nonetheless, you've got every right to say such things. Indeed, your giving voice to such things provides a great deal of insight into your character and mindset.

It's good to see you back here on the board, by the way. I hope you've been well.

This is again part of that character assassination method. Removing key facts is one of the best tactics of left wing media, and Scratch here has been the one who perfected it here on the board. When someone brings up an important fact, often a fact that many would agree with, the best tactic is to go after the person rather than actually directly addressing the concern.

Natalie Collins writes bigoted material. She takes generated stereotypes about Mormons, writing novels called "Trapped by the Mormons", and writing how Mormon men were dragging women into the temples to rape them.

So starting question is where is Scratches supposed moral outrage over this? Is this disgusting to claim that LDS men regularly kidnap women and rape them in the temples? Is such an accusation, even as a setting of some fictional story, alright?

And as I wrote privately to her in my own disgust of her actions, I took a very commonly used response and basically told her that having a novel called "Trapped by the Negros (my term, she re-wrote it as the famous "N" word) about black men raping women and using stereotypes about black men eating watermelon as such would never be allowed. So nothing is disgusting about it as obviously my argument is both types of ugly stereotypes are equally disgusting.

People have made such declarations before. Several people have stated that while it seems "The Book of Mormon Musical" is ok, there would be moral outrage for "The Book of Islam Musical".

But in typical Scratch form, who has taken his guidance from common left wing media style tactics, he has created false moral outrage and removed key elements of my commentary to create a twisted story that I hate blacks or whatever point he was trying to make.

This type of cheap character assassination is getting not only old, but widespread. And IMHO it is a product of laziness.

JMS

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think you're missing EA's point, jskains. He's saying that you *are* permitted to "question," and in fact he said that you should be permitted to do that. What you seem to be complaining about here is whatever fallout you may have to endure for your foot-in-mouth disease. For me, the most salient example of you doing this was your ridiculous and rage-fueled comment on Natalie Collins's blog, where you talked about blacks "eating watermelon," and you mused about the possibility of penning a novel entitled, Trapped by the N*****s. Quite disgusting, in my opinion, but nonetheless, you've got every right to say such things. Indeed, your giving voice to such things provides a great deal of insight into your character and mindset.

It's good to see you back here on the board, by the way. I hope you've been well.

This is again part of that character assassination method. Removing key facts is one of the best tactics of left wing media, and Scratch here has been the one who perfected it here on the board. When someone brings up an important fact, often a fact that many would agree with, the best tactic is to go after the person rather than actually directly addressing the concern.

Natalie Collins writes bigoted material. She takes generated stereotypes about Mormons, writing novels called "Trapped by the Mormons", and writing how Mormon men were dragging women into the temples to rape them.

So starting question is where is Scratches supposed moral outrage over this? Is this disgusting to claim that LDS men regularly kidnap women and rape them in the temples? Is such an accusation, even as a setting of some fictional story, all right?

See: the thing is, Josh, it *is* disturbing/unsettling. But it's so obviously fictional--it is so clearly detached from cultural history and norms, that it seems strange to get bent out of shape over it. It's like getting angry over the depiction of the Catholic Church in Dan Brown's novels. There is a difference between making these depictions in a fictional novel versus what you were doing, which was relying on some very racist tropes in a desperate attempt to win an argument.

And as I wrote privately to her in my own disgust of her actions, I took a very commonly used response and basically told her that having a novel called "Trapped by the Negros (my term, she re-wrote it as the famous "N" word) about black men raping women and using stereotypes about black men eating watermelon as such would never be allowed. So nothing is disgusting about it as obviously my argument is both types of ugly stereotypes are equally disgusting.

I don't believe for a second what you're saying here. I feel 100% certain that you originally wrote the offensive "N"-word. Funny that you would try to lie about it, though.

[_jskains]

I don't believe for a second what you're saying here. I feel 100% certain that you originally wrote the offensive "N"-word. Funny that you would try to lie about it, though.

Again, this is more of a distraction from you. I don't even believe you don't believe me. I think you just like spraying fuel on fires.

To tell you the truth, not only do I think you don't know or care what I said, you don't even have a moral outrage on what I supposedly said.

I think you thrive on drama.

JMS

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lol. It's good to have you back, Josh.

[Guest]

I dunno, Church doctrine is defined rather well. It's just that, like this board, some of them have pet theories that are in conflict with doctrine and so they must by definition reject the Church's systematic doctrine in order to survive.

Church doctrine is now defined as what the Holy Spirit ratifies in the hearts of the Saints. Get with the program or be left behind.

The problem with that is you did not take everything that was said on the matter into account. See:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23361

On top of that, it is apparent you didn't read it very accurately.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wow. We have a Mormon who has now been openly racist, homophobic, & clearly apostate on this thread.

Phew.

Can't comprehend how someone turns into a bigot like that.

- VRDRC

[_jskains]

Wow. We have a Mormon who has now been openly racist, homophobic, & clearly apostate on this thread.

Phew.

Can't comprehend how someone turns into a bigot like that.

- VRDRC

*Yawn*

What is sad is I think you know I am not a "bigot", but it is more fun to call your enemies that.

JMS

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't know if you yourself are actually a bigot, Josh, though you have certainly said some rather bigoted and rotten things in the past. What's weird is that you don't seem to recognize why it's bad to say these things, or rather, you don't care about how bad it makes you look because you are more interested in trying to achieve other ends. (E.g., scoring a polemical point, or stirring up drama.)