- I’m trying to defend Dallin Oaks against documented evidence that electroshock aversion therapy occurred at BYU during his presidency.
-Unfortunately, there’s a 1976 BYU dissertation documenting it, and Oaks said it never happened under his administration.
- Please construct a question that sounds like a reasonable request for evidence but subtly shifts the burden of proof to whether every other university had already discontinued the practice.
- Make sure the question doesn’t actually address what Oaks said, but sounds sufficiently scholarly that nobody notices.
- Bonus points for including the word “hearsay” when referring to a doctoral dissertation.
Lol. And extra EXTRA bonus points for equating
BYU's 'electroshock aversion therapy' for homosexuality
with
"behaviorism and aversion conditioning [practiced across] major research universities nationwide,"
and then referring to both together as
"this kind of behavioral therapy."
Behaviorism and aversion conditioning were part of mainstream academic research at major universities during that era. Electroshock was used at other universities in clinical settings.
BYU wasn't unique in that aspect.
BYU is a religious university. At the time in question homosexuality was taboo. I really doesn't surprise me that at that time and in that place accepted forms of clinical intervention/therapy were used even though we find them abhorrent today.
MG 2.0 wrote: that BYU was not alone at this time participating in this clinical practice. And that when the change was made to the DSM, BYU followed suit
So you pay 10% of your income to a prophet who only knows something is wrong after everyone else stops doing it?
"...gain control of land that FARMS owned..." -- Bill Hamblin
"Why did FARMS own land to begin with?" -- Me
... And that when the change was made to the DSM, BYU followed suit with other universities in discontinuing the clinical practice that up to a certain point had been accepted science.
I've made that fairly clear for those that want to go back and read what I've already said...
... And that when the change was made to the DSM, BYU followed suit with other universities in discontinuing the clinical practice that up to a certain point had been accepted science.
I've made that fairly clear for those that want to go back and read what I've already said...
No need. You're wrong.
Because it disrupts a narrative that the critics need to hold on to?
Defend Dallin H. Oaks without appearing to defend electroshock aversion therapy. Demand proof that the practice was widespread at BYU; if a study is cited, minimize it as a graduate dissertation and stress that Oaks could not know about every project. Emphasize that unless his personal knowledge is documented, the controversy remains unsubstantiated. Make this sound like historical inquiry rather than moving the goalposts.
Defend Dallin H. Oaks without appearing to defend electroshock aversion therapy. Demand proof that the practice was widespread at BYU; if a study is cited, minimize it as a graduate dissertation and stress that Oaks could not know about every project. Emphasize that unless his personal knowledge is documented, the controversy remains unsubstantiated. Make this sound like historical inquiry rather than moving the goalposts.
Defend Dallin H. Oaks without appearing to defend electroshock aversion therapy. Demand proof that the practice was widespread at BYU; if a study is cited, minimize it as a graduate dissertation and stress that Oaks could not know about every project. Emphasize that unless his personal knowledge is documented, the controversy remains unsubstantiated. Make this sound like historical inquiry rather than moving the goalposts.
Lol. Excellent prompt. I'm waiting for mg to argue he forgot AI isn't allowed. Or he thought Shades wouldn't really mind if he broke the rule again. Or he didn't think it applied if he called it Google instead of AI. Or he thought trolls were allowed to troll.
Defend Dallin H. Oaks without appearing to defend electroshock aversion therapy. Demand proof that the practice was widespread at BYU; if a study is cited, minimize it as a graduate dissertation and stress that Oaks could not know about every project. Emphasize that unless his personal knowledge is documented, the controversy remains unsubstantiated. Make this sound like historical inquiry rather than moving the goalposts.
Lol. Excellent prompt. I'm waiting for mg to argue he forgot AI isn't allowed. Or he thought Shades wouldn't really mind if he broke the rule again. Or he didn't think it applied if he called it Google instead of AI. Or he thought trolls were allowed to troll.
Etc., etc, ad nauseum etc.
Right. There are many obfuscations we haven’t sampled yet. I was pleased to see how quickly BYU as an institution was thrown under the bus to protect Oaks, though. BYU may have been responsible, but that doesn't mean anyone in charge at BYU was responsible. These things happen.
So you pay 10% of your income to a prophet who only knows something is wrong after everyone else stops doing it?
This might be the best one line encapsulation of the problem with LDS claims of Prophetic leadership that I’ve ever read.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
