Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Plutarch

You've got me a bit concerned. If you already have a copy of "Mormon Enigma", how could you not have known that Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour was considered atrocious by his contemporaries?

What I'm trying to say in a nice way, is that you keep giving me reasons to believe that nothing I say, nor any logic or evidence I could present (or anyone else), would ever make a difference to you. What that means to me is that a serious debate with you looks like it would be a complete waste of my time. At least Wade Englund is conscientiously answering all my questions. What would you be doing - repeating a testimony? Ignoring pertinent facts I present, just like you did on the other thread? Claiming that everything I say is "vacuous"? What do you really want to debate for? For vanity's sake? So you can feel brave? Do you really believe there is some chance I might see something about Mormonism that you don't? I can contemplate the reverse possibility. But can you seriously contemplate that you might be wrong about Mormonism?

By the way, I couldn't care less whether Mormon Discussions regulars vote me the "winner" or not. Is this really about "winning a debate" for you? I rather imagined that for you, as for me, this wasn't about "winning", but was rather, all about finding the truth, whatever it may be, and however painful it might be. Or is that not what this is all about for you?

I ask, because if this is only about "defending a belief" for you, period, then I can assure you of the result. It will be, at least in your mind - that you have defeated your "opponents" handily, and have emerged victorious. After all, any person on this planet can choose to believe in anything, and then choose to keep believing in it, forever, no matter what. And for anyone who chooses to do that, of course they will always emerge victorious from any encounter with disconfirming evidence - since for them, by definition, since they are "already totally right", there can be no such thing as "disconfirming evidence". As it happens (as I know from first-hand experience), that is rather a pleasant place to be psychologically, but still, it makes nonsensical the idea of a "debate" for anything other than showboating purposes. That again makes the prospect of a serious debate with you look like a stupid and selfish undertaking.

So, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions prior to seriously considering a debate with you:

If, by some crazy chance, Joseph Smith did not tell the truth about his experiences, and so the church he started was not what it claims, would you want to know? Why or why not?

If it were not what it claimed to be, how do you think you could know that? What do you think would have to be true, for Mormonism to not be true?

[_Pahoran]

Hi Plutarch

You've got me a bit concerned. If you already have a copy of "Mormon Enigma", how could you not have known that Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour was considered atrocious by his contemporaries?

What I'm trying to say in a nice way, is that you keep giving me reasons to believe that nothing I say, nor any logic or evidence I could present (or anyone else), would ever make a difference to you. What that means to me is that a serious debate with you looks like it would be a complete waste of my time. At least Wade Englund is conscientiously answering all my questions. What would you be doing - repeating a testimony? Ignoring pertinent facts I present, just like you did on the other thread? Claiming that everything I say is "vacuous"? What do you really want to debate for? For vanity's sake? So you can feel brave? Do you really believe there is some chance I might see something about Mormonism that you don't? I can contemplate the reverse possibility. But can you seriously contemplate that you might be wrong about Mormonism?

By the way, I couldn't care less whether Mormon Discussions regulars vote me the "winner" or not. Is this really about "winning a debate" for you? I rather imagined that for you, as for me, this wasn't about "winning", but was rather, all about finding the truth, whatever it may be, and however painful it might be. Or is that not what this is all about for you?

I ask, because if this is only about "defending a belief" for you, period, then I can assure you of the result. It will be, at least in your mind - that you have defeated your "opponents" handily, and have emerged victorious. After all, any person on this planet can choose to believe in anything, and then choose to keep believing in it, forever, no matter what. And for anyone who chooses to do that, of course they will always emerge victorious from any encounter with disconfirming evidence - since for them, by definition, since they are "already totally right", there can be no such thing as "disconfirming evidence". As it happens (as I know from first-hand experience), that is rather a pleasant place to be psychologically, but still, it makes nonsensical the idea of a "debate" for anything other than showboating purposes. That again makes the prospect of a serious debate with you look like a stupid and selfish undertaking.

So, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions prior to seriously considering a debate with you:

If, by some crazy chance, Joseph Smith did not tell the truth about his experiences, and so the church he started was not what it claims, would you want to know? Why or why not?

If it were not what it claimed to be, how do you think you could know that? What do you think would have to be true, for Mormonism to not be true?

Tal,

are you trying to evade accepting the ground rules but start the debate anyway?

Inquiring minds, and all that.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Tal Bachman]

Pahoran

I can't imagine what could be unclear or unreasonable about what I wrote above. Don't you think those are valid concerns? And do you really think we could even possibly debate whether someone would want to know if the church was a fraud, barring a claim by me of mind-reading powers? It's not even possible to debate that lol. I'm asking the guy a question so I don't get into a completely pointless argument, the purpose of which seems simply to fuel pre-existing beliefs or even delusions - or something similarly unproductive. Who cares about doing that? (That's why I'm liking this Wade Englund thing).

Anyway, about Plutarch - I'd like to know if I was wrong. Would Plutarch? I think that's a fair question. After all, if he would not want to know if he was wrong, it's just as much a waste of time for anyone (not just me), as it is for you to debate someone who's convinced that Mossad agents flew the planes into the World Trade Center, but also wouldn't really want to know if he was wrong.

By the way, I suppose by the same weird logic, I could accuse you here of trying to start an interview lol. But that would make me sound silly, wouldn't it? Also, did you see my answer to your question about the interview? It's on that other thread.

[_MormonMendacity]

On any topic relating to the Latter-day Saint experience. Two ground rules.

(1) I do not wish to have to defend Christianity at the same time. For example, I think it a complete waste of time to have to defend miracles in general.

(2) Each post has to be limited to an agreed-upon number of words; otherwise, the post can be ignored.

Party on.

P

It sounds like we can just skip to the "otherwise" in his ground rules.

[_The Dude]

[color=darkred]
By the way, I couldn't care less whether Mormon Discussions regulars vote me the "winner" or not. Is this really about "winning a debate" for you? I rather imagined that for you, as for me, this wasn't about "winning", but was rather, all about finding the truth, whatever it may be, and however painful it might be. Or is that not what this is all about for you?

This is a valid concern. When one person enters the discussion interested in truth, and the other person enters with a interest in winning, both participants will end up viewing the discussion a waste of time. The person who just wants to win will tend to take insincere, shifting positions in order to find one that wins.

[_rcrocket]

I take it, Tal, that you do not intend to any sort of debate with the very simple ground rules I suggest.

I can understand why you fear the knowledgeable Mormon.

P

[_Runtu]

I take it, Tal, that you do not intend to any sort of debate with the very simple ground rules I suggest.

I can understand why you fear the knowledgeable Mormon.

P

Oh, please. "Fear the knowledgeable Mormon"?

It's fascinating to see the distrust on both sides, isn't it?

[NorthboundZax]

Riiiight........you mean the "knowledgeable Mormon" who had no idea that Mormon polygamy was considered so atrocious by 19th century Americans, that the desire to abolish it was (along with the desire to abolish slavery) the raison d'etre of the Republican Party - which went from non-existence to its candidate winning the presidency in under a decade? I'm sure everyone reading this realizes you really caught me out, Plutarch! I surrender!

On a more serious note, Plutarch, what your astounding intelligence has yet to reveal to you is that you proposed a few conditions for debate, but denied me anything like the same courtesy. Is that what "knowledgeable Mormons" are like?. When I inquire as to where you're coming from, you announce it as proof that you're a "knowledgeable Mormon", and that I am in dread fear of you. You must be joking. At least, I hope you are.

Is this as good as it gets here? Pahoran - can you help out? You probably know Mormon history and doctrine. You want to interview me or vice versa or something?

[_rcrocket]

[color=darkred]
By the way, I couldn't care less whether Mormon Discussions regulars vote me the "winner" or not. Is this really about "winning a debate" for you? I rather imagined that for you, as for me, this wasn't about "winning", but was rather, all about finding the truth, whatever it may be, and however painful it might be. Or is that not what this is all about for you?

This is a valid concern. When one person enters the discussion interested in truth, and the other person enters with a interest in winning, both participants will end up viewing the discussion a waste of time. The person who just wants to win will tend to take insincere, shifting positions in order to find one that wins.

The coward's response. No big deal.

[_rcrocket]

Riiiight........you mean the "knowledgeable Mormon" who had no idea that Mormon polygamy was considered so atrocious by 19th century Americans, that the desire to abolish it was (along with the desire to abolish slavery) the raison d'etre of the founding of the Republican Party - which went from non-existence to its candidate winning the presidency in under a decade? I'm sure everyone reading this realizes you really caught me out, Plutarch! I surrender!

Is this as good as it gets here? Pahoran - can you help out? You probably know Mormon history and doctrine. You want to interview me or vice versa or something?

Again, I don't see an agreement to accept my offer, so really no need to discuss it further.

And, I never came close to arguing that polygamy was not considered atrocious by 19th century Americans; you just kept avoiding my questions about the ethical standards which define your position of wrongness. But, I digress.

You coward.


P