midgley has a problem with sensitivity

[Philo Sofee]

At a minimum, does anyone think there is any way to get this Mormon, this LDS church member, this emeritus BYU professor, to STOP describing Jews killed during the Holocaust as those who "went up the stack" ??????

It could be that Dr. Midgley speaks in such a horrendous manner about Holocaust victims in order to boost his LDS apologist bona fides.

Well his pathetic research damn sure don't boost his bona fides...

[IHAQ]

The phrase “up the stack” in relation to the genocide perpetrated on the Jewish people is such a disrespectful and needlessly flippant term that one can deduce that Midgeley has no sensitivity to others whatsoever. He fits the definition of a sociopath perfectly. There are numerous other examples to support that conclusion about him.

[huckelberry]

Just as a matter of language to my ears the phrase people going up the stack would be disrespect for the people perpetrating the event not the victims.

[Marcus]

In which Peterson argues that although the tone of Midgley's comment is offensive, he will allow it because it is the same as the tone of offensive comments here that he thinks are not objected to:

Dr. Sunstoned > Louis Midgley • 17 hours ago

Dr. Midgley,

The tone of your post is offensive. How can anyone have a "favorite" death camp?

-----
DanielPeterson Mod > Dr. Sunstoned • 17 hours ago • edited

Stoned: "The tone of your post is offensive."

I know where you're coming from, and what has been said about Professor Midgley there just tonight and in precisely this context.

Perhaps I should share some specimens here of what, by your failure to condemn it there, you and your associates plainly regard as an inoffensive tone. I guarantee that it won't help your (already severely limited) credibility here.

http://disq.us/p/2lvtnx1

So, to recap. Because Peterson sees offensive comments posted here that he thinks are not objected to, Midgley's offensive comments should get a pass. in my opinion, he's not helping at all. He gives Midgley a pass for being offensive on his blog.... because at places he considers to be the absolute sewer, he thinks comments like Midgley's are not objected to?

Well, at the very least, it's clear Peterson thinks Midgley's comments are inappropriate.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, good thing the Saints don’t proclaim to have a moral code or moral standard by which they should be held or judged.

What an absolute shitgibbon of a religion. We can be absolute assholes because you jerks are assholes! Up the stack with the lot of you!

You know. Years ago when King Shitgibbon posted here many, many times people, to include myself, asked him to stop antagonizing posters and stop taking jabs at posters. He wouldn’t stop. We literally gave him a head’s up that the next time he insulted someone we were going to punch back. He continued to insult us. So we started punching a little harder than he did, so he could sense how it felt. He of course was the victim. As was Russ and Louis. We of course offered many, many, many times to take conversations up to the Celestial kingdom where decorum and moderation were enforced, and he declined.

He liked the insults.

Louis likes it. Peterson likes it. Russ likes it. And the Q15 like it, otherwise they would’ve called off these dogs years ago. It is what it is.

Offer still stands, by the way. Celestial discussions await the Mopologists.

eta:

This was his response to the above:

Meanwhile, just this afternoon over at what I sometimes call the Peterson Obsession Board, one of the frequent commenters took some time to reminisce about the days — beginning something on the order of fifteen years back, I think, and ending roughly a decade ago — when I too used to post comments comment there. He remembers that I came over with guns blazing, insulting and offending the good folks on that board right and left. They patiently implored me to stop alienating people and to treat them charitably and kindly, but I refused. I continued with my vicious behavior because . . . well, because that’s the kind of person I am. And that’s why my blog is the way it is, too. Mean-spirited and nasty. Ultimately, in a bid to help me understand what it was like to be on the receiving end of my heartless cruelty and unable to think of any other way to provide a badly needed moral education for me, they began to give me a bit of a taste of it myself. And they’ve continued to do it during the decade or so since I stopped commenting there. But I’ve refused to learn.

Indeed.

- Doc

[Dr Moore]

In which Peterson argues that although the tone of Midgley's comment is offensive, he will allow it because it is the same as the tone of offensive comments here that he thinks are not objected to:

Dr. Sunstoned > Louis Midgley • 17 hours ago

Dr. Midgley,

The tone of your post is offensive. How can anyone have a "favorite" death camp?

-----
DanielPeterson Mod > Dr. Sunstoned • 17 hours ago • edited

Stoned: "The tone of your post is offensive."

I know where you're coming from, and what has been said about Professor Midgley there just tonight and in precisely this context.

Perhaps I should share some specimens here of what, by your failure to condemn it there, you and your associates plainly regard as an inoffensive tone. I guarantee that it won't help your (already severely limited) credibility here.

http://disq.us/p/2lvtnx1

So, to recap. Because Peterson sees offensive comments posted here that he thinks are not objected to, Midgley's offensive comments should get a pass. in my opinion, he's not helping at all. He gives Midgley a pass for being offensive on his blog.... because at places he considers to be the absolute sewer, he thinks comments like Midgley's are not objected to?

Well, at the very least, it's clear Peterson thinks Midgley's comments are inappropriate.

Still following the old law. An eye for an eye, and they're definitely keeping a tally.

[IHAQ]

In which Peterson argues that although the tone of Midgley's comment is offensive, he will allow it because it is the same as the tone of offensive comments here that he thinks are not objected to:

Dr. Sunstoned > Louis Midgley • 17 hours ago

Dr. Midgley,

The tone of your post is offensive. How can anyone have a "favorite" death camp?

-----
DanielPeterson Mod > Dr. Sunstoned • 17 hours ago • edited

Stoned: "The tone of your post is offensive."

I know where you're coming from, and what has been said about Professor Midgley there just tonight and in precisely this context.

Perhaps I should share some specimens here of what, by your failure to condemn it there, you and your associates plainly regard as an inoffensive tone. I guarantee that it won't help your (already severely limited) credibility here.

http://disq.us/p/2lvtnx1

So, to recap. Because Peterson sees offensive comments posted here that he thinks are not objected to, Midgley's offensive comments should get a pass. in my opinion, he's not helping at all. He gives Midgley a pass for being offensive on his blog.... because at places he considers to be the absolute sewer, he thinks comments like Midgley's are not objected to?

Well, at the very least, it's clear Peterson thinks Midgley's comments are inappropriate.

Peterson is operating his blog comments to the standards of a venue he views as a cesspool and/or a “trailer park”. Ipso Facto Peterson thinks Sic et Non is a cesspool.

Using the residential areas of the less wealthy as a term of disparagement is further evidence of the Mopologists lack of worthiness in the sight of their Lord. Doesn’t the CHI now discourage that kind of behaviour?

[malkie]

The concept that ill treatment is permitted if the recipient is felt to deserve it seem to me to be profoundly un-Christ-like.

But it is used as an excuse here too.

[Philo Sofee]

In which Peterson argues that although the tone of Midgley's comment is offensive, he will allow it because it is the same as the tone of offensive comments here that he thinks are not objected to:

So, to recap. Because Peterson sees offensive comments posted here that he thinks are not objected to, Midgley's offensive comments should get a pass. in my opinion, he's not helping at all. He gives Midgley a pass for being offensive on his blog.... because at places he considers to be the absolute sewer, he thinks comments like Midgley's are not objected to?

Well, at the very least, it's clear Peterson thinks Midgley's comments are inappropriate.

Still following the old law. An eye for an eye, and they're definitely keeping a tally.

Yep. Jesus is a complete foreigner to them.

[Philo Sofee]

In which Peterson argues that although the tone of Midgley's comment is offensive, he will allow it because it is the same as the tone of offensive comments here that he thinks are not objected to:

So, to recap. Because Peterson sees offensive comments posted here that he thinks are not objected to, Midgley's offensive comments should get a pass. in my opinion, he's not helping at all. He gives Midgley a pass for being offensive on his blog.... because at places he considers to be the absolute sewer, he thinks comments like Midgley's are not objected to?

Well, at the very least, it's clear Peterson thinks Midgley's comments are inappropriate.

Peterson is operating his blog comments to the standards of a venue he views as a cesspool and/or a “trailer park”. Ipso Facto Peterson thinks Sic et Non is a cesspool.

Using the residential areas of the less wealthy as a term of disparagement is further evidence of the Mopologists lack of worthiness in the sight of their Lord. Doesn’t the CHI now discourage that kind of behaviour?

The CHI authors have no Ph.d's, therefore they don't have to b e followed or obeyed. If one is not as smart as them thar BYU Ph.d totin dudes, then their wishes are beneath them, and only contempt and disobedience will be done...