Sledge wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:49 pmLOL! The CES letter is a propagandistic gish gallop. It asks no new questions. It provides no new thinking on any of its subjects. It's author doesn't even understand many of the "arguments" they make. And, on top of that, it's been totally annihilated by Bennett and FAIR.You think DCP responding to all of these bricks in the wall of Mormon criticism defeats the wall. Yet the proof that the wall remains is that the Mormon church for nearly 200 years has never become anything more than an oddity in the larger Christian and religious world. The CES letter allows former Mormons to see their religion how the rest of the world sees it - as a giant collection of absurdities and impossibilities that require suspension of logic and critical thinking to be a part of.
- in my opinion, the CES letter is probably as much propaganda as anything produced by FAIR.
- "Gish Gallop" is a term used in a debate, where "a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Since it is in written form, you can take all the time you want to respond to each of the points in the Letter, so "Gish Gallop" is not really an appropriate term in this case. However, If I recall correctly, Professor Peterson has used the term in describing the Letter, so some folks think it's OK to do so. - As far as I am aware, there was never any obligation on the part of the author of the CES Letter to ask new questions, or to provide new thinking. Whether he does so or not may be a matter of opinion.
- Whether the author understands many of the "arguments" in the CES Letter may be a matter of opinion. You have shown no proof of this assertion.
- Here is FAIR's summary of the Letter:
For 56% of the content, they do not claim falsehoods or errors. "Spin" is subjective - likely meaning that they didn't like the conclusions that Runnels drew, or his "tone", but they could not say he was wrong, or (I'm sure) they would have done so.
This is what you call "totally annihilated"?
I'd call it a fair success for the CES Letter.