How we can all make the Celestial Forum a better place

[_richardMdBorn]

A good critical thinker would either not make these mistakes or would withdraw his statement when they were pointed out to him.

A good critical thinker need not be an expert on minutia or particular definitions, often times it is general concepts which are much more important to understanding. Of course coming to an agreement on the definition of words is important in most discussions. And that is generally worked out as part of the preliminary. There is no point arguing over something with each person having a different concept of what those words mean. The definition of "immaculate conception" is a minor, non critical sub argument in the previous discussion regarding biblical contradictions. I really don't want to get into the minutia of the sub argument on what "immaculate conception" means in Catholic doctrine. In any event it is myth defined. And the definition is one which evolved. Good for you that you know what the definition is of that Catholic doctrine.

That's fine. But when the mistake was pointed out repeatedly to JAK, he didn't acknowledge it. He started the discussion on immaculate conception; I didn't. He cited websites which had the correct definition; yet he continued to assert errors which had been previously corrected.

[_marg]

That's fine. But when the mistake was pointed out repeatedly to JAK, he didn't acknowledge it. He started the discussion on immaculate conception; I didn't. He cited websites which had the correct definition; yet he continued to assert errors which had been previously corrected.

Maybe he doesn't agree with you. I'm willing to discuss this in a separate thread to flesh it out. Keep in mind, I'll have to research "immaculate conception" and look at the discussion.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin for the most part...Kevin has said...This is what Kevin is doing...especially in favor of Kevin...Kevin in my PM's... Kevin didn't use direct words...this isn't about Kevin.

Coulda fooled me.

JAK is an exceptionally excellent critical thinker.

According to whom?

You appear to be his one supporter over the course of his stay here. In fact, I cannot think of any comparison to any other poster who gets so much defense by another poster. Unless of course you want to consider the MADB moderator's stubborn defenses of DCP. EAllusion refuses to believe JAK is what he claims (retired professor) and Tarski thinks "you have been bamboozled" when you refer to his intelligence. So I think I am in pretty good company here when I say JAK is not a serious poster.

I've read his post enough years to appreciate that. I am very appreciative of what I've learned from him.

Like what? That the immaculate conception has something to say about osmosis? JAK is a trolling sciolist who relies heavily on google and any website that is willing to publish what he likes to hear. When it comes down to defending his claims ascounterpoints and questions are presented, he either 1) flees the scene or 2) tries to defend the argument without the help of web blogs, thus making a fool of himself (as he did with the immaculate conception).

Being as he is good at critical thinking he is also a target by those who disagree with him and want him silenced which is what Kevin has said

Stop being meoldramatric. First you lied by saying I admitted "intentionally harrassing" him and now you say I intend to silence him. I intend to refute him, which I have done on several occassions. He needs you to come in and take care of the aftermath by recreating history and pretending nothing he has argued has been dealt with.

To give an analogy, its like in hockey (which I don't even watch by the way) but when there is a really good player the other team will send guys out to attack the good player. Without protection from team mates that excellent player wouldn't have a hope, he'd be attacked constantly to the point that he couldn't play. That is the sort of thing on a much smaller scale developing here. This is what Kevin is doing.

JAK is not a good player. He isn't even mediocre. The guy is a joke because he doesn't even hide the fact that he plagiarizes from the web when making his anti-religion rants. But the reason he gets on our nerves is that he absolutely refuses to deal with refutations. He picthed a fit on this forum a month ago insisting I said something I never said. As usual, you were his only defender. When it became clear I never said what he attributed to me, he tucked his tail firmly between his legs and headed off into the sunset. When he did decided to show his face again, he pretended the past event never took place, refusing to apologize for the obvious misrepresentation. Again, this is your "critical thinker"!

He's not giving his opinions of people he disagrees with, he's not refuting the arguments he is focusing on attacking.

Name a single argument by JAK that I have not addressed. Just one. I dare you. I double dare you. When you're done, would you like to see a list of the numerous refutations JAK refuses to address?

It's a little better now that the mods aren't going to be trigger happy and move threads around at whim, especially in favor of Kevin, but still the Celestial is a waste of time to be part of if someone is going to be intent on harassing.

They are not in favor of me, they are in favor of intelligent dialogue. There is this unspoken expectation in celestial, and that is they want to watch people who are serious about debate. JAK is not a serious person. It seems he cannot handle refutation on any level. I have seen this with his silly arguments that have been refuted by Richard and others. Instead of addressing counterpoints and answering direct questions, he disappears, knowing that you will immediately run to the scene and make up all sorts of convoluted reasons why he is some kind of victim. I mean really, your recent thread on the immaculatre conception is ridiculous. Why are you trying to defend the untenable? JAK didn't know what the heck he was talking about, period. End of story.

If this thread is about how to make the Celestial a better place, then all those things that Shades mentions in the opening post are crap to put it bluntly.

Celestial should be a place, not only free of insults, but also free of amateurs. It should be something like the pundits forum over at MADB. Some people simply have no business here. I have an established track record in this section of the forum. I can debate cordially with those who are serious (Bokovoy is an example).
I mean really, what is it that you and JAK are arguing that couldn't be argued in terrestial? The only reason you came here was because you followed me here anyway. And you know this. When you jumped on me in a thread I opened for sethbag, and accused me of dishonesty on a moot point that really didn't pertain to the subject I was addressing. Ever since then you have been lingering in here with your own creepy form of harassment. But what is your contribution? All you do is whine and moan and complain because your favorite poster is being used for mop water.

If anything will make the Celestial a better place, it would be elimination of ad hominems.

Again, you don't understand what an ad hominem is, nor do you know how to properly identify one, nor do you understand that ad hominems are not always bad.


Trevor,

It seems to me that the mistake we are all making is to take this a little too seriously. I am in agreement with those who say that this is first and foremost a form of entertainment. When I am not having fun, I should look for fun elsewhere, and I do!

I used to look at it as entertainment but not lately. I'd be lying if I said I came here with no intention to argue points I believed to be true. I've shifted my interests lately, from Mormonism to theism in general. Sometimes I am afraid of starting a discussion because I don't know when I'll finish. I know I have several past discussions I need to catch up with, including one or two with you I think.

I certainly would not judge a person's critical thinking skills based on ignorance of the byzantine byways of Catholic theology.

JAK is said to be an exceptional critical thinker. Only by marg, of course. But JAK's main theme has been religion. How someone claiming to be an expert on religion, can misrepresent a well known religious doctrine like the immaculate conception is simply beyond explanation. He even said the doctrine was "Christianity," apparently clueless that this was a uniquely Catholic in nature. His ignorance is inexcusable because he relied on it to prove a point he thought he was making and when corrected, he refuses to accept it. And to make matters worse, he linked everyone to a website that actually explained the proper doctrine. That alone is proof positive that JAK expects us to put more effort into research than he is willing to do. Surely you can see how this undercuts his argument and his credibility as an "exceptionally excellent critical thinker."

[_Jersey Girl]

That's fine. But when the mistake was pointed out repeatedly to JAK, he didn't acknowledge it. He started the discussion on immaculate conception; I didn't. He cited websites which had the correct definition; yet he continued to assert errors which had been previously corrected.

Maybe he doesn't agree with you. I'm willing to discuss this in a separate thread to flesh it out. Keep in mind, I'll have to research "immaculate conception" and look at the discussion.

Flesh what out? You can examine the thread and statements that richard refers to beginning right here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=141257#141257

[_marg]

You have an agenda Kevin and it's constant, I won't be responding to you. J.G. fleshing out that discussion has started in a new thread, I've read Richard's response but haven't responded and probably will tomorrow.

[_Jersey Girl]

You have an agenda Kevin and it's constant, I won't be responding to you. J.G. fleshing out that discussion has started in a new thread, I've read Richard's response but haven't responded and probably will tomorrow.

There isn't anything to "flesh out", marg.

[_marg]

There isn't anything to "flesh out", marg. Read the original.

Then don't read the thread.

[_Jersey Girl]

There isn't anything to "flesh out", marg. Read the original.

Then don't read the thread.

Oh, no problem. Since you appear to require delivery service, I'll transport relevant posts right into the new thread. He ignored correction regarding Immaculate Conception at least twice that I recall which is why I ceased posting on the thread.

[_Bond...James Bond]

You have an agenda Kevin and it's constant, I won't be responding to you.

Doesn't everyone have an agenda?

Even if its only a personal one made up of opinions we all have agendas.

[_Jersey Girl]

But JAK's main theme has been religion. How someone claiming to be an expert on religion, can misrepresent a well known religious doctrine like the immaculate conception is simply beyond explanation. He even said the doctrine was "Christianity," apparently clueless that this was a uniquely Catholic in nature. His ignorance is inexcusable because he relied on it to prove a point he thought he was making and when corrected, he refuses to accept it. And to make matters worse, he linked everyone to a website that actually explained the proper doctrine.

Couple of things here.

1. Nowhere on this board has JAK claimed to be "an expert on religion". Your statement is simply false.
2. JAK did misrepresent the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. When it was pointed out to him that he was in error, he did
ignore the correction.
3. He did link to the doctrine via the Catholic Encyclopedia just under his misrepresentation. That is where my challenge began.

The exchanges in question will be posted in chronological order on the "new" Immaculate Conception thread.