What?????s wrong with Mormon Apologetics? My reply to Seth Payne

[_Kishkumen]

I believe you are so blinded, that you do not realize my position on many things at all.

stem, you rarely if ever share your position on anything. My level of perception has little or nothing to do with it.

I do not quash any criticism. I put it all on perspective. It just so happens your intended criticism is often personal animus directed towards certain LDS folks, it seems to me. You complain they are so bad when they attack another, but in so doing you often personally attack them. So I point it out. You don't like it. Most people don't like to be told the truth, at times. But someone ought to say it, for your sakes.

Of course you seek to quash criticism, stem. Your claims that you tell the truth are silly. I haven't seen you hit the mark where I am concerned very often. What I dislike is that most of your pretended engagement in a discussion has little or nothing to do with the topic. It is mostly a waste of time.

Interesting. I think your judgment of them is unjust, and that your attempt to characterize them as such is due to your own hostility, as much as you would deny it.

In other words, you will not even attempt to address the substance of my comments on racist thought, because you either choose not to or simply are unable, and will instead unfairly aim personal accusations at me based on your crappy mind-reading skills.

You are the one making things personal, stem.

Very mundane here. Look, it doesn't matter. You don't like them and in so doing wish to paint them as racist. That's silly. What can be said in defense of such accusations?

Of course it matters, stem. It matters very much. Your problem is that all you can see is the personal. You don't care about the issues at all. If I try to say something about the racist assumptions that underlie a certain way of approaching the topic, you have nothing to say, and you don't care. All you can see is the word "racist" and you react to it. Just because you are incapable of seeing beyond the emotion attached to the word does not constrain the way I am able to discuss the issue.

"I'm not racist".

"yes you are...because when you quote a black man as finding happiness in his life, that must mean you support the notion that slavery happened for a good reason" or something.

"I didn't say that. I do know slavery happened and I'm very happy to know someone who can exult in his current state considering where we were not too long ago."

"You racist"

Stupid.

Yes, stem, your pretend dialogue is stupid. It represents your own limitations when it comes to discussing the issue. It does not represent my intentions, my thinking, or my rhetoric.

I imagine all this is truly personal for you. You don't get to tell me what it is for me, and I really don't appreciate you attributing your faulty interpretations of what I am doing to me.

[_stemelbow]

I don't hate you, you're just an incredibly easy target. You have that rare combination of stupidity and condescension. Plus it's always fun to watch you squirm when someone refuses to engage in your bull s***. You're a chump Stem, and if it weren't for the fact that you enjoy abusing all of us so much, I wouldn't talk to you at all.

I abuse you guys now? oh boy.

Anyway, thanks for marking me as the incredibly easy target to go after. Everyone needs another as a target to go after, huh? Oh brother, Molok. I hope more for you.

[_stemelbow]

David--

Do you genuinely think that the Mopologists are guiltless? Do you think they actually deal with substantive issues? Or not?

Please stop the weird mode of stalking. Just call me stem.

Anywho, I didn't say anyone was guiltless of anything, well, particularly not you.

[Guest]

I abuse you guys now? oh boy.

Anyway, thanks for marking me as the incredibly easy target to go after. Everyone needs another as a target to go after, huh? Oh brother, Molok. I hope more for you.

Of course you abuse us. What in God's name would you call the drivel that you type? "The Lord's Work"? You posit such depthful positions like "Joseph Smith having plates is evidence that Joseph Smith had plates" and "people disagree when they talk"

[_Chap]

I don't hate you, you're just an incredibly easy target. You have that rare combination of stupidity and condescension. Plus it's always fun to watch you squirm when someone refuses to engage in your bull s***. You're a chump Stem, and if it weren't for the fact that you enjoy abusing all of us so much, I wouldn't talk to you at all.

I abuse you guys now? oh boy.

Anyway, thanks for marking me as the incredibly easy target to go after. Everyone needs another as a target to go after, huh? Oh brother, Molok. I hope more for you.

I notice that stemelbow's former habitual folksy and less sophisticated prose style is being re-introduced in such posts as this, no doubt as he tries to get back into character after his lapse into college-level literacy and complexity of expression.

We actually had a "ya" for "you" not long ago. Now we have 'guys', 'huh', 'oh boy' and no doubt there are more delights to come.

[_Doctor Scratch]

David--

Do you genuinely think that the Mopologists are guiltless? Do you think they actually deal with substantive issues? Or not?

Please stop the weird mode of stalking. Just call me stem.

How is it "stalking", David? Or are you just trying to spin things here?

Anywho, I didn't say anyone was guiltless of anything, well, particularly not you.

What are the Mopologists guilty of?

[_stemelbow]

stem, you rarely if ever share your position on anything. My level of perception has little or nothing to do with it.

Whatever.

Of course you seek to quash criticism, stem. Your claims that you tell the truth are silly. I haven't seen you hit the mark where I am concerned very often. What I dislike is that most of your pretended engagement in a discussion has little or nothing to do with the topic. It is mostly a waste of time.

Then I offer you this piece of advice: just keep complaining about me.

In other words, you will not even attempt to address the substance of my comments on racist thought, because you either choose not to or simply are unable, and will instead unfairly aim personal accusations at me based on your crappy mind-reading skills.

You are the one making things personal, stem.

No. I'm not. I responded in that thread. I leave my response there. You can either respond to me there or continue to whine about me here and there. Or you can drop it. Whatever you choose. I support you.

Of course it matters, stem. It matters very much. Your problem is that all you can see is the personal. You don't care about the issues at all. If I try to say something about the racist assumptions that underlie a certain way of approaching the topic, you have nothing to say, and you don't care. All you can see is the word "racist" and you react to it. Just because you are incapable of seeing beyond the emotion attached to the word does not constrain the way I am able to discuss the issue.

Interestingly, Stak attempts to observe and paint all of LDS apologetics as being problematic for it's use of rhetoric. Sadly, that is a great word to describe the attempt towards DCP and Will. Weird how it almost always turns to you guys complainng about that which you yourselves do.

Yes, stem, your pretend dialogue is stupid. It represents your own limitations when it comes to discussing the issue. It does not represent my intentions, my thinking, or my rhetoric.

I imagine all this is truly personal for you. You don't get to tell me what it is for me, and I really don't appreciate you attributing your faulty interpretations of what I am doing to me.

I don't care. Do what you feel is best. I'll simply do the same. I feel like I see through your attempts just fine and I'll call you on it. You go ahead and respond with a, "you're a dummy. You can't even imagine talkign on the level I comminicate on. I'm smart and I exalt myself in your presence." Blah blah.

[_Themis]

You aren't the only person that has this problem with those two. I just ignore them for the most part because it is almost impossible to carry on a meaningful discussion with them. They misrepresent things, dissemble, ignore what you say, or can't seem to comprehend your points and respond to them in any cogent manner. They also have the annoying habit of butting into other discussions you might be having with someone else or following you from thread to thread posting something bizarre and completely unrelated in response.

Tobin, you're projecting your own inadequacies on us. You've yet to meet a strawman argument you didn't like.

Tobin gets upset that people call him out on his inconsistencies. he also doesn't seem to read what we say anyways. I go with his idea that Joesph got it wrong with the papyri but then he accuses me of doing the opposite. If he would read what we say maybe we wouldn't have these problems

[_stemelbow]

Of course you abuse us. What in God's name would you call the drivel that you type? "The Lord's Work"? You posit such depthful positions like "Joseph Smith having plates is evidence that Joseph Smith had plates" and "people disagree when they talk"

You're whining of abuse because you miss my point and are attributing quotes to me that I never said? Oh sheesh. You guys...

[_Molok]

I don't care. Do what you feel is best. I'll simply do the same. I feel like I see through your attempts just fine and I'll call you on it. You go ahead and respond with a, "you're a dummy. You can't even imagine talkign on the level I comminicate on. I'm smart and I exalt myself in your presence." Blah blah.

Lol u mad?