Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Gadianton]

Need I point out again that the labels "meat wad," and "cockroach" are the pithy and rather odd descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

May I point out that this is a lie told by a third-rate "intellectual historian"? (as an aside: Midgley wouldn't know what the philosophy of science is if it bit him in the ass. He has no right to criticize Gemli.)

Dan most definitely did create the label for Gemli, and then Lou himself stepped up the insult a notch. Gemli, as those who find themselves attacked by fanatics and racists often do, wore the the insult as a badge of honor. But he did not invent the insult, the proprietor of the blog on which he posts invented it, and if the proprietor refuses to acknowledge that, then he is also a liar.

Here is the post within this thread where I document the history of insulting Gemli as a "Meat wad".

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51803&p=1186777&hil ... t#p1186777

[_Gadianton]

Here, let me quote the Arch-liar himself, contradicting himself above:

My hunch is that by "experimental" what gemli has in mind is pestering rats and mice on the assumption that by doing this one can explain away the soul of human beings and hence see everyone as merely an unusual complicated It or Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology

[_Gadianton]

Are you guys going to continue that comment section in brazen lying, and not own up to it that it's Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley who coined the insulting of Gemli as a piece of meat?

[_Dr Exiled]

I don't understand why these guys just don't admit that they like to be aggressive and that this type of name calling simply is part of the game. I don't blame them. I'd probably be angry too if I were forced to cheer on Early Modern English or the Dales' nonsense. Experts like Dr. Ritner are handing it to them. Then they have to deal with the Dodo brethren and their authoritarian nonsense that must be defended. It has to be difficult.

[_Lemmie]

It’s also worth noting that Peterson started describing gemli as a “meat unit“ and an “it” not in a comment, but in the body of a blog entry, posted Nov 22, 2018.

I’ve regularly asked this particular meat-unit exactly which element of the scientific method theists are obliged to mock or reject. I’ve routinely sought to know precisely which accomplishment of science this particular carbon-based life form imagines that I’m compelled to disdain or to disavow.



But it never answers.


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... y-lad.html

[_Lemmie]

Peterson:

But I can tell you with assurance that Professor Midgley has often expressed a fondness for gemli

Oh yes, Midgley’s fondness is self-evident...

“If [posting here] amuses him or gives him some odd pleasure, then he is obviously free to waste his presumably meaningless life opining up a storm about things he know nothing...”

“pathetic gemli...”

“a mere cockroach...a mere soon to be decaying "meat wad" “

“ It really does not give me any pleasure at all to spell out these things, since it is like exposing the weakness of someone who is handicapped...”

“ remembers when being a racist was just what one did in New Orleans. The reason is that he was then a racist....”

“ And gemli is also able to dress himself, and shower when necessary, as he posts his atheist dogmatic religion. But gemli has never managed to do any actual science. ....”

“ He might be a nice fellow who does not kill his neighbor's dogs for fun, and does not rob banks or even be on drugs. So he is not a menace to himself and his neighbors. But that is about the best one can say about his dogmatic religion...”

I think it’s fair to say gemli may not think Midgley is so “fond” of him. Or, at the very least, he would appreciate Midgley taking his “fondness” elsewhere.

[_Dr LOD]

Saturday Louis Midgley gems.

http://disq.us/p/2bcevte
However, your list of my offensive comments on sic et non does not go back far enough to catch all my truly nasty replies to the one you may know as Dr. LOD.

This appears to be a partial apology, or at least acknowledgment of poor behavior for the racist diatribe that the good professor directed towards my persona. Because I suggested that much of his Maori work, was deeply undermined by the cultural appropriation inherent in his belief systems.

Now this is an interesting narrative:

The first time it was because a friend wanted to stop there to purchase some items for his book collection. I presented Sandra with a copy of Mike Quinn's infamous sex survey, which consisted of over four hundred questions that he indicated would take at least two hours to complete.


http://disq.us/p/2bcdofd
One of the questions was as follows: How many times did you as an LDS missionary have sex with an animal? Then the possible answers to this question began with (1) several times a day, followed with (2) once a day, and so forth. Sandra was sickened, and told me that she would no longer sell his books, which she previously had claimed were simply wonderful.

He acts like this is a terribly deviant question for an academic to be asking in the course of their research. Yet the church for at least four generations back was asking a very similar question every prospective missionary.

I see someone like Quinn asking this question to find out if it really was a valid question for church leaders to be asking in the first place. And was it a widespread problem that needed this type of intervention.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Louis “peckerhead” Midgley at his finest:

“Louis Midgley > tavs

... You quote Dawkins approvingly. And also go on and on attributing to gemli how devout atheists should "love the life we now have, embrace and care for the environment we live in and work to solve human problems" and so forth and so on.

I am right now more than suggesting more than merely suggesting that both you and gemli are incoherent...”

Well, I’m “more than suggesting more than merely suggesting” this fatuous peckerhead is an insufferable prick.

“So forth and so on.”

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, this is interesting. On the Lord's day, you know, the day where Saints are to repent, take the sacrament, and bask in the familial love of Christ BYU professor and Mormon priesthood holder Louis "de Torquemada" Midgley has been agitating for the genial Moksha to pass the former's purity test (designed to fail, of course):

"Louis "peckerhead" Midgley > Moksha

Moksha: (1) You clearly do not grasp the fact that Charles/tavs does not have a clue what gemli has been preaching. If you are not an atheist, (2) you simply have not paid attention to gemli. (3) Instead, you have been far too busy mocking and sneering at Latter-day Saints, while still being what a "believer."

Moksha You might or might not realize that you have yet to provide evidence of exactly what what or why you believe something. If you are at least a nominal Latter-day Saint, you have forgotten that that you made a covenant with God, that you renew if and when you partake of what we call the sacrament, to both defend and build the Kingdom of God.

Now you may mean by "believer" merely that you believe in God. If this is the case, you have still not understood gemli."

You'll notice not only does the peckerhead demand personal information from Moksha, but has stated outright that talking with him (Midgley) is nothing more than a kafkatrap and that unless you bow down and worship Midgley's Mormonism and Midgley himself then you're in for a long haul and endless accusations of guilt and heresy.

- Doc

[_Doctor Scratch]

Now this is an interesting narrative:

The first time it was because a friend wanted to stop there to purchase some items for his book collection. I presented Sandra with a copy of Mike Quinn's infamous sex survey, which consisted of over four hundred questions that he indicated would take at least two hours to complete.


http://disq.us/p/2bcdofd
One of the questions was as follows: How many times did you as an LDS missionary have sex with an animal? Then the possible answers to this question began with (1) several times a day, followed with (2) once a day, and so forth. Sandra was sickened, and told me that she would no longer sell his books, which she previously had claimed were simply wonderful.

He acts like this is a terribly deviant question for an academic to be asking in the course of their research. Yet the church for at least four generations back was asking a very similar question every prospective missionary.

I see someone like Quinn asking this question to find out if it really was a valid question for church leaders to be asking in the first place. And was it a widespread problem that needed this type of intervention.

Well, wait a second. Midgley doesn't offer up any proof for this. Is it really true that Quinn's survey asked those questions? I admittedly only looked in a cursory sort of way, but the lone "scholarly" mention to the survey was from an old FARMS article authored by noted Mopologist George Mitton. (And Mitton does not provide a link to the survey, nor any of its actual text in an appendix. He offers up a footnote to an article in an obscure-seeming journal that I haven't yet bothered to investigate.)

I think we have to accept the possibility here that Midgley might be lying.