Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Kishkumen]

Let go of what? Their capacity for critical thought?

The resentment. It's pretty thick here.

Then don't play stupid. In doing so you are only feeding resentment, not quashing it.

[_stemelbow]

No, stem, as people have demonstrated to you time and again in the face of your feigned obliviousness, the testimony of the eight was clearly placed in service of the claim that Joseph Smith translated these ancient plates to produce an account of an ancient Hebrew civilization in the Americas, as it was demonstrably intended to do. This the introduction of the Book of Mormon itself declares.

I clearly disagree and I don't think you nor anyone has made a very good case for that at all. It is quite clear the 8 testified of seeing the plates. That they said Joseph Smith was a translator was not to testify they know he translated. That they said the plates were translated, does not mean they testified they know the translation was true. The testimony seems quite clear to me, they soberly testified they saw plates, the appeared ancient and they had writings or some kind of markings on them. That seems obvious to the point of having even DJ agree that Joseph Smith had some plates. All he can do about it now is question whether the witnesses were qualified to know if the plates were ancient, which is fair enough, but beside the point. And in teh wake of all of this, you turn the discussion to a complaint about me. have fun.

[_stemelbow]

I fully admit that I am not very sunny in the face of deception and the attacks of the strong upon the weak.

Wait a second, you consider me the weak and yet you pile on...oh well.

[_marg]

And in the wake of all of this, you turn the discussion to a complaint about me. have fun.

I agree with you stem. Kish is doing too much attacking as opposed to focusing on the issues. You aren't the issue.

[_stemelbow]

Then don't play stupid. In doing so you are only feeding resentment, not quashing it.

ah, you misunderstand, the resentment I see is not resentment directed at me, which is clearly there, But the misdirected resentment that is common here. Mr. Dehlin brought it up often in complaining about DCP on his short stay here--DCP, he would bluster, hurts people. Thus came his personal shots at DCP here. That's not fair. DCP could be the worst scholar in the world and come up with all sorts of terrible arguments and ideas and it wouldn't hurt a sole. To misdirect anger is not healthy, in some cases.

[_Sophocles]

I wonder why there is such a ganging up, bullying mentality in response to posters like me. It seems to be this board's form of moderating--shut out and poison the well of those who present different views that are often not well-received here.

Do you also wonder why people like Brant Gardner are treated so well?

Maybe I can guess. Brant Gardner's arguments are so easily refuted that there is no need to resort to bullying. In fact, he's such a mental lightweight that we welcome him here with open arms to that we can blast his softballs out of the park.

Stem, on the other hand, is such a formidable opponent that the only hope we have against his incisive observations is to shout him down with bullying and piling on. His plainspoken arguments cut us to the quick, and we wicked take the truth to be hard, and respond the only way we know how, by lashing out with personal attacks. (Incidentally, we are forced to deal with jskains, static, bspace, and even DCP in similar fashion. We simply can't hope to go toe to toe with any of them on the issues, so outmatched are we by their intellect.)

Am I close?

[_SteelHead]

Stem,
When the intro of the Book of Mormon clearly draws upon the witnesses of the 8 as a proof of its divinity, how is that not then the witnesses be used of proof of divinity?

[_Yoda]

I don't do that to people.

My point about enacting the Ignore feature is twofold:

1. You are not going to change people. Posters here are going to interact the way they will interact. And, like it or not, the "free speech" environment here, which has both advantages and disadvantages, does allow for hostilities to occur.

2. You basically have a choice...kind of like free agency. You can choose to interact with certain folks, while simply ignoring others, either by using the Ignore feature, which shrinks their responses so you don't have to read them unless you click on them, or, you can simply skip over the reading of certain individuals, like you have admitted to doing with Scratch.

Since the Ignore feature is available, and the tenor of Shades' board is very clear, I honestly think it is a little silly to continually whine about negativity. You and Why Me are the biggest offenders of this. The problem is, it is kind of like "the boy who cried wolf". When there is a constant complaint about the known tenor of the board, then it basically falls on deaf ears. Then, unfortunately, when there is a REALLY SEVERE crisis, even if it is valid, there is a danger of it being unnoticed based on the messenger.

I am not saying any of this to attack you, Stem, or be mean in any way. I like you; you know that.

But basically, the reason I created my own little private board was because I had no desire to change Shades' board; I like Shades board, am a Moderator here, and accept it for what it is. However, I wanted my own little corner of the Internet where I could conduct discussions my way.

No one is stopping you from doing the same! I will even help you if you are interested in starting a board. I can give you advice on software, etc.

[_stemelbow]

Maybe I can guess. Brant Gardner's arguments are so easily refuted that there is no need to resort to bullying. In fact, he's such a mental lightweight that we welcome him here with open arms to that we can blast his softballs out of the park.

Stem, on the other hand, is such a formidable opponent that the only hope we have against his incisive observations is to shout him down with bullying and piling on. His plainspoken arguments cut us to the quick, and we wicked take the truth to be hard, and respond the only way we know how, by lashing out with personal attacks. (Incidentally, we are forced to deal with jskains, static, bspace, and even DCP in similar fashion. We simply can't hope to go toe to toe with any of them on the issues, so outmatched are we by their intellect.)

Am I close?

Not close at all, of course. In part he is treated better because he engages very little, and largely because he's much more intelligent than myself and most other posters here. He's here on such a limited basis and he doesn't get all that heavily involved, and his involvement is not an effort to directly challenge or question. He's often just presenting his ideas for clarity's sake. And cautiously and wisely avoids anything else. That was clear when recently he came around in the Book of Mormon thread and offered a bit of a concession in saying he hesitated stating his position. Do you really think he's here permanently? His visit will be short lived. In part, I'm sure, due to the hostility that is prevalent here.

I get why I'm not liked. No one likes it when another comes along and shines a light on poor behavior.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,
When the intro of the Book of Mormon clearly draws upon the witnesses of the 8 as a proof of its divinity, how is that not then the witnesses be used of proof of divinity?

Take the two together and there is such a witness. Treat the 8 separately and there is none. I thought that was obvious.