“The proprietor on April 13” wrote: I’m being accused over at the Peterson Obsession Board of having deleted a lengthy exchange, including ten or fifteen posts in which I supposedly assaulted this blog’s stunningly dogmatic resident atheist commenter, “gemli, as “stupid” and “ignorant.” Presumably, I deleted it because I found it somehow embarrassing. Now, it’s absolutely the case that I believe gemli to be — by conscious choice — remarkably and determinedly ignorant of the subjects on which he presumes to comment here, but I have never called him “stupid” and I don’t believe him to be so.
“The same proprietor 3 days later” wrote: gemli: "I have no intention of being glib or dismissive regarding this topic."
By. now, the habit is so ingrained that glib dismissals and refusals to engage come to gemli automatically. Reflexively. It's tempting, sometimes, to suspect that no conscious mind remains.
It really seems like the proprietor is having some difficulty keeping his stories straight these days. I honestly hope these lapses in basic logical thinking are not indicative of some medical issue.
It’s hard to square a sane person making these statements just days apart and convincing themselves that they’re telling the truth.
Perhaps decades of lying to oneself eventually catches up? And can no longer be sustained?
DCP lies so often and frequently (almost as much as he plagiarizes) that he doesn't even know the difference anymore. Here are just a few of the many times DCP has described Gemli and/or his beliefs and actions "stupid." It's also interesting to note that DCP's favorite descriptor of Gemli is to use the term "ignorant." There are many more examples of DCP calling describing Gemli and/or his beliefs and actions as ignorant.
Frequent poster Nines, is upvoted by Peterson after calling Gemli stupid.
That you indefatigably refuse to grasp that and join the rest of us at the table is either blitheringly stupid, flagrantly dishonest, or both.
As has been pointed out probably two score previous times, your rigid dichotomy between "stories" and what you call "evidence" is stupid and untenable. It might make sense in herpetology, the queen of the sciences in gemli-world
“The proprietor on April 13” wrote: I’m being accused over at the Peterson Obsession Board of having deleted a lengthy exchange, including ten or fifteen posts in which I supposedly assaulted this blog’s stunningly dogmatic resident atheist commenter, “gemli, as “stupid” and “ignorant.” Presumably, I deleted it because I found it somehow embarrassing. Now, it’s absolutely the case that I believe gemli to be — by conscious choice — remarkably and determinedly ignorant of the subjects on which he presumes to comment here, but I have never called him “stupid” and I don’t believe him to be so.
“The same proprietor 3 days later” wrote: gemli: "I have no intention of being glib or dismissive regarding this topic."
By. now, the habit is so ingrained that glib dismissals and refusals to engage come to gemli automatically. Reflexively. It's tempting, sometimes, to suspect that no conscious mind remains.
It really seems like the proprietor is having some difficulty keeping his stories straight these days. I honestly hope these lapses in basic logical thinking are not indicative of some medical issue.
It’s hard to square a sane person making these statements just days apart and convincing themselves that they’re telling the truth.
Perhaps decades of lying to oneself eventually catches up? And can no longer be sustained?
You fail to understand Petersonese, the language of Mopologetics. He technically did not call Gemli stupid. He said and I quoth "suspect that no conscious mind remains." Linguistically there is no real connection with "stupid" and "suspect that no conscious mind remains." See? The actual and literal word "stupid" is not written. Peterson is innocent of the charges! Ain't that neato keen!
Dan, I know you read this board several times a day. Why can't you follow the Prophet's counsel and not personally attack, belittle and insult others?
The Prophet wrote:My dear brothers and sisters, how we treat each other really matters! How we speak to and about others at home, at church, at work, and online really matters. Today, I am asking us to interact with others in a higher, holier way. Please listen carefully. “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy”10 that we can say about another person—whether to his face or behind her back—that should be our standard of communication.
Contention is a choice. Peacemaking is a choice. You have your agency to choose contention or reconciliation. I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.
Brothers and sisters, we can literally change the world—one person and one interaction at a time. How? By modeling how to manage honest differences of opinion with mutual respect and dignified dialogue.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Mike Parker insists he has never, ever ever called Jonathan Neville names. As an apprentice mopologist, he learned from the best how to believe his own lies. No one outside their circle believes, and that's why mopologists only speak to each other.
Mike Parker insists he has never, ever ever called Jonathan Neville names. As an apprentice mopologist, he learned from the best how to believe his own lies. No one outside their circle believes, and that's why mopologists only speak to each other.
One does wonder who exactly they’re trying to convince.
When I was about 15, I tried something similar with my dad, and he was furious. He said: "Don't you call me stupid!" and probably added a few more words that I've since blocked out.
The thing is, as I explained (though he wasn't the least bit mollified by the explanation), that I didn't actually call him stupid. I had said: "Dad, don't be stupid."
See - a whole nuther thing! I was simply giving him some good advice! Sheesh!
In my defence, I was a teenager, and was neither a university professor nor a public apologist for a religion.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
When I was about 15, I tried something similar with my dad, and he was furious. He said: "Don't you call me stupid!" and probably added a few more words that I've since blocked out.
The thing is, as I explained (though he wasn't the least bit mollified by the explanation), that I didn't actually call him stupid. I had said: "Dad, don't be stupid."
See - a whole nuther thing! I was simply giving him some good advice! Sheesh!
In my defence, I was a teenager, and was neither a university professor nor a public apologist for a religion.
Lol. Great story. And as a teenager, you could develop your brain and grew up, so you get a pass. Peterson and Parker are well past that evolutionary stage, and are fully responsible for their nonsense.
Daniel Peterson Mod gemli
gemli: "Do you believe all theological origin stories? Are all gods real? Does every sighting of an angel mean that someone actually saw an angel?"
Essentially the same supremely stupid question that you've asked here, and that has been answered here, many times already.
The three main tools of apologetics are denial, pretzelization of logic, and ad hominem arguments, with ad hominem being the most prevalent.
There really is no way to answer Gemli's call for evidence, so apologists employ ad hominem arguments. It is harmless to consistently call him stupid since even the apologists realize Gemli is among the brightest on the forum.
Gemli's presence enables the blog responses to consist of more than the word ditto.
