More Holland -- this time at Harvard fibbing about Prop. 8

[_Carton]

Actually, the more I think about it, and the more I see maklelan's ability to parse words, I wonder if he might be good apostle material.

It's really amazing to me how anyone could NOT recognize that Holland was being INTENTIONALLY deceptive in his answers at Harvard.

[_maklelan]

I understood him to mean that general authorities and resources were not involved beyond expressing the Church's position on gay marriage and telling members to go out and vote (which is essentially what the Church institution has done in other states considering the issue -- reading a letter read in sacrament meeting, and that's it). By the GA's becoming involved in strategy, organization, personal appearances by GA's sent to CA (as well as via satellite from Salt Lake City), as well as area and local leaders putting pressure on members to contribute time and money, there was an institutional formalization that Holland later denied.

So what leads you to believe that Holland intended it this way instead of referring to the formal production of campaign materials, commercials, and other communications aimed at the general voting public? I would see that kind of participation as much more representative of "institutional formalization" than an arbitrary line between sending a letter or sending a live representative, and that would perfectly fit the context of Holland's defense of the church. Why do you reject the possibility of that use of the term?

[_maklelan]

Actually, the more I think about it, and the more I see maklelan's ability to parse words, I wonder if he might be good apostle material.

It's really amazing to me how anyone could NOT recognize that Holland was being INTENTIONALLY deceptive in his answers at Harvard.

Its amazing to me that you guys find this kind of idiotic rhetoric at all worthy of the moral and intellectual superiority you assert.

[_Carton]

I mentioned sophomoric rhetoric before. Here is another instantiation.

Then you need to take more time to think and less time to bark.

I don't see any "materially adverse facts," I just see some semantic quibbling by someone not very well acquainted with semantics.

Stop acting like such a child.

You obviously didn't understand it, though, and now you're doing a piss-poor job of defending your interpretation.

I would reconsider what you know, then.

Arrogance.

Condescension.

You've got those parts of the mopologetic skill set down pat. Now you just need to add racism, sexism, and misogyny and you'll have a guaranteed corner office at the Maxwell Institute.

[_Carton]

Its amazing to me that you guys find this kind of idiotic rhetoric at all worthy of the moral and intellectual superiority you assert.

The only moral and intellectual superiority being asserted here is yours.

[_maklelan]

Arrogance.

Condescension.

You've got those parts of the mopologetic skill set down pat. Now you just need to add racism, sexism, and misogyny and you'll have a guaranteed corner office at the Maxwell Institute.

Do you think that hypocritically pointing out character flaws actually has bearing on the argument, or is this just some emotional masturbation on your part?

[_maklelan]

The only moral and intellectual superiority being asserted here is yours.

I never could have anticipated the "I know you are but what am I" response. I'm down for the count.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Arrogance.

Condescension.

You've got those parts of the mopologetic skill set down pat. Now you just need to add racism, sexism, and misogyny and you'll have a guaranteed corner office at the Maxwell Institute.

Do you think that hypocritically pointing out character flaws actually has bearing on the argument, or is this just some emotional masturbation on your part?

Is William Schryver your idol...count down to Maklelan using "circle jerk".

[_maklelan]

Is William Schryver your idol...count down to Maklelan using "circle jerk".

Oh, please. "Emotional masturbation" absolutely pales in comparison to the sexual rhetoric bandied about this website by critics of the church.

[_Yoda]

To me, it looks like maklelan is teetering on the brink of either apostasy or full-blown Midgley-style apologetics. I can't imagine the tension of the cognitive dissonance in his mind at this moment--what with being in favor of gay marriage and yet also showing such talent at parsing language. You've got to wonder: which way will it go? Will it break for the liberal gay-marriage supporters or the hard-core mopologetics crowd?

It will be very interesting to watch what happens with this one ...

C'mon, you can pigeonhole me better than that.