One-Minute Answers to Apologist Assertions

[_Simon Belmont]

I have not "claimed" apologists say what is in this thread. I provided links to where these standard responses have been used.

You provided quotes by me, a non apologist. Your argument goes like this:

Major Premise: All apologists assert certain things.
Minor Premise: Simon Belmont has asserted these same things.
Conclusion: Simon Belmont is an apologist.

Your major premise is wrong, and your whole argument falls flat on its face.

And there is no "may have" about what I have demonstrated you to have in fact said.

Again, I've said a lot of things. Why is what I have said relevant? You yourself admitted I am not an apologist.

You are right that you are not an apologist. You are merely someone who parrots what apologists have said, then denies what apologists say, then is shown unequivocally that both apologists and you have in fact used the talking points I have been discussing in this thread.

And you simply parrot the standard anti-Mormon talking points. Big deal. I've heard them numerous times.

At this point, the never-ending train wreck that is your puerile attempt to defend Mormonism on this board really seems to be you deliberately embarrassing yourself.

The difference is, I don't have to defend Mormonism. It defends itself.
Also, I do not speak for Mormonism, Mormons, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints.

This "high five" and "fellow tribesman" b***s*** is just more of your juvenile whining and "I know you are but what am I?" response.

So it is okay for you to refer to myself and others whom you view as supporters as a "tribe" but it is not okay when I do the same thing in reference to the exact same behavior from you? How hypocritical. I can tell it makes you angry when the tables are turned and you are forced to examine your own behavior.

You unfailingly rely on blurbs from the FAIR wiki---up to and including plagiarizing them---but then when the guy in charge of the FAIR wiki tells you that I am not quote mining, suddenly it's, "So? What do I care?"

A Wiki, by definition, cannot be plagiarized. It is a community online encyclopedia which has many contributors. It holds no copyright. Also, the FAIR Wiki happens to say things in a succinct manner which I like, so I use it. Again, big deal.

You were invited quite some time ago to demonstrate a single thing I have ever done on this board that actually is quote mining. And you have still failed to do so.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15581&hilit=quote+mining

Anytime you have to search MDB or any other repository of data or database for a quote which supports your assertions, you are quote mining.

Sweet Jesus, Simon: there's an autistic teenager on this board who puts more thought and sincerity into what he says than you do. What's your excuse?

I am thoughtless and insincere. But at least I am right.

And for future reference: I don't need someone who pussed out of going on a mission telling me I don't understand the LDS Church.

It is evident that you might want to reexamine that thought, Darth J.

[_Eric]

Simon, Darth J so completely outclasses you as a thinker that you can't hope to convince anyone of this dribble. It is just that obvious to anyone with half a brain, which I am increasingly beginning to suspect does not include you.

He certainly outclasses me in ability to search through vast amounts of data to find the few data which support whichever claim he is making. That I admit.

As a thinker? No.

Simon, I think you mean whatever claim he is making.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, I think you mean whatever claim he is making.

Actually no. Whichever is correct, since I was referring to a small list of claims made by Darth J. If there were an infinite number of items on the list, I would have used whatever.

I thought you were giving up posting, now that I have proven to you that you implied you were an expert writer.

[_Brackite]

"We don't know why blacks couldn't have the priesthood/it wasn't doctrine."

So you are claiming that all other churches in the world are apostate, and the LDS Church is the only one led by continuing revelation, and yet the Church's practice about who could be ordained to the priesthood and go through the temple for almost 150 years was based on the opinions and prejudices of church leaders?

Just a minor correction here! The Priesthood ban was initiated under Brigham Young, Not Joseph Smith. Brigham Young initiated the Priesthood ban in 1848 or 1849. Hence the correct statemen should read here:
"So you are claiming that all other churches in the world are apostate, and the LDS Church is the only one led by continuing revelation, and yet the Church's practice about who could be ordained to the priesthood and go through the temple for almost 130 years was based on the opinions and prejudices of church leaders?"

[_Eric]

Actually no. Whichever is correct, since I was referring to a small list of claims made by Darth J. If there were an infinite number of items on the list, I would have used whatever.

LOL. No.

I thought you were giving up posting, now that I have proven to you that you implied you were an expert writer.

[/quote]

LOL. Where did you do that? And I thought it was "awesome"? Now it's expert? What did I say, Simon? You seem to be too frustrated to even think clearly right now. Maybe you should take a break and come back to posting when you've calmed down.

[_Simon Belmont]

LOL. No.

LOL. Yes.

LOL. Where did you do that? And I thought it was "awesome"? Now it's expert? What did I say, Simon? You seem to be too frustrated to even think clearly right now. Maybe you should take a break and come back to posting when you've calmed down.

You need to read the thread where we were discussing this, Eric. Have you done so?

Edit: I'll just do it for you.

I will retire from posting forever if you can point to one single example of me saying anything closely related to "how awesome of a writer" I am. Otherwise, you just sound sort of jealous and bitter. I've never done such a thing. Others have said that and maybe that makes you mad, but I would never be so arrogant.

You've only implied it, Eric.

Nope. Never. Show me just one example or admit you're a jealous liar.

Will you stop criticizing the Church and Dr. Peterson forever?

Here you go:

Some people could say that Jeffrey Peterson's writing skills are questionable at best.

Hard hitting pieces like 'Yogi Bear' lacks the charm of original cartoon certainly speak for themselves.

Just remember, Simon. Who's = Who is.

For you to judge the writing skills of another strongly implies that you believe you are an expert writer.

[_Kishkumen]

How is Simon Belmont not an apologist when he defends the LDS Church?

[_sock puppet]

How is Simon Belmont not an apologist when he defends the LDS Church?

a·pol·o·gist   
[uh-pol-uh-jist]
–noun
1.
a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
2.
Ecclesiastical .
a.
Also, a·pol·o·gete  
[uh-pol-uh-jeet]
. a person skilled in apologetics.
b.
one of the authors of the early Christian apologies in defense of the faith.

[_Joseph]

Who decides if someone is an assassin? The guy who pulls the trigger.
Who decides if someone is a prostitute? The girl who trades money for sex.
Who decides if someone is a rapist? The guy who decides to rape.
You are an apologist because you offer apologetic arguments in an attempt to defend your system of belief.
Simon, are you apologizing for being an apologist?
******************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^#############+++++++++++++

You are insulting assassins, prostitutes and rapist with this comparison to slimeone.

[_Darth J]

I have not "claimed" apologists say what is in this thread. I provided links to where these standard responses have been used.

You provided quotes by me, a non apologist. Your argument goes like this:

Major Premise: All apologists assert certain things.
Minor Premise: Simon Belmont has asserted these same things.
Conclusion: Simon Belmont is an apologist.

Your major premise is wrong, and your whole argument falls flat on its face.

One of these days, there may be a thread where one of your retorts has some relevance to what was said. Today, however, is not that day.

You said that my list of apologist assertions was a straw man. I then demonstrated that not only do apologists really say those things, so do you. Your attempt to save face is to turn this around into somehow I am trying to prove that you are in apologist, rather than the indisputable fact that I have shown your "straw man" retort to be utter BS.

And there is no "may have" about what I have demonstrated you to have in fact said.

Again, I've said a lot of things. Why is what I have said relevant? You yourself admitted I am not an apologist.

You said this is all a straw man. Addressing arguments that someone has in fact made is not what a straw man is.

You are right that you are not an apologist. You are merely someone who parrots what apologists have said, then denies what apologists say, then is shown unequivocally that both apologists and you have in fact used the talking points I have been discussing in this thread.

And you simply parrot the standard anti-Mormon talking points. Big deal. I've heard them numerous times.

Unsupported assertions have no place in a scholarly discussion. I already demonstrated in this thread how you parrot apologist talking points. You have provided no evidence for your tit-for-tat retort.

At this point, the never-ending train wreck that is your puerile attempt to defend Mormonism on this board really seems to be you deliberately embarrassing yourself.

The difference is, I don't have to defend Mormonism. It defends itself.

Versus

"Apologetics is a response to criticism. Otherwise, what would there be to 'defend against?'"

and

"Apologetics means defense of the faith. If you take away the reason for the defense, you take away apologetics."

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15191&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=roadblocks&start=21

Also, I do not speak for Mormonism, Mormons, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints.

Versus

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15646&p=383659&hilit=+incomplete+Mo+information+#p383659

This "high five" and "fellow tribesman" b***s*** is just more of your juvenile whining and "I know you are but what am I?" response.

So it is okay for you to refer to myself and others whom you view as supporters as a "tribe" but it is not okay when I do the same thing in reference to the exact same behavior from you? How hypocritical. I can tell it makes you angry when the tables are turned and you are forced to examine your own behavior.

What I said about you is "tribalism." Like here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16220&p=398156&hilit=tribalism#p398156

You have incessantly shown this tribalism with your "us vs. them" mentality. You constantly refer to anyone and everyone who questions your cherished beliefs as a bigot. I already gave an example of this mindset in the thread. Here is another one:

"Further, I do not believe that Dr. Peterson would even be an apologist were it not for critics of the church."

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 7&p=404107

You're vastly overstating your own case to talk about turning the tables when you have provided no evidence for your "I know you are, but what am I?" elementary school playground retort.

You unfailingly rely on blurbs from the FAIR wiki---up to and including plagiarizing them---but then when the guy in charge of the FAIR wiki tells you that I am not quote mining, suddenly it's, "So? What do I care?"

A Wiki, by definition, cannot be plagiarized. It is a community online encyclopedia which has many contributors. It holds no copyright. Also, the FAIR Wiki happens to say things in a succinct manner which I like, so I use it. Again, big deal.

Copyright is not a prerequisite for plagiarism.

plagiarism

1.
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2.
something used and represented in this manner.

You were invited quite some time ago to demonstrate a single thing I have ever done on this board that actually is quote mining. And you have still failed to do so.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15581&hilit=quote+mining

Anytime you have to search MDB or any other repository of data or database for a quote which supports your assertions, you are quote mining.

You know, until now I did not think you would really come out and explicitly say that using evidence to support your assertions is quote mining. You are actually claiming that backing up arguments with fact is intellectually dishonest.

By definition, quote mining means taking things out of context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of ... of_context

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... e%20mining

For you to try to expand the concept of quote mining to cover the legitimate use of relevant facts in an argument is the most stunningly naked display of intellectual bankruptcy that I have ever seen.

Sweet Jesus, Simon: there's an autistic teenager on this board who puts more thought and sincerity into what he says than you do. What's your excuse?

I am thoughtless and insincere. But at least I am right.

Not only do you habitually fail to support your sweeping assertions, it is not especially difficult to prove that your reflexive ipse dixit responses are wrong. Where might I find some proof of anything in particular that you are right about?

And for future reference: I don't need someone who pussed out of going on a mission telling me I don't understand the LDS Church.

It is evident that you might want to reexamine that thought, Darth J.

Oh, okay. I do need someone who was too much of a pussy to go on a mission to explain the LDS Church to me.

I'm glad I decided to reexamine my thoughts.