healing/recovery through venting?

[_Pahoran]

And let us all remember: only Mormon apologists use the ad hominem fallacy.

It is only a fallacy when used to divert attention away from the real issues of a discussion.

You mean--like you did?

Since Wade and Ray are giving advice...it is important to the discussion what their qualifications are for giving advice.

Not nearly as important as the merits of that advice.

Divorce is not only one of the most impoverishing experiences anyone is ever likely to have, it is also one of the most emotionally debilitating. I hope it never happens to you; more than just your smug assumptions of superiority would suffer.

From where I sit, your remark looks like a rather spiteful way to kick someone when he's down. Had I done that, it would no doubt merit another multi-paragraph entry on Scratch's obsessive hate blog. Since it was done by someone who hates as he does, of course, it will be passed over in silence.

Mormon apologists from my observations of the FAIR board employ ad hominem as a way to shift focus off the issues and onto the critic.

Which is exactly what you did.

And I don't blame them really.

I'm glad to hear it; it would be highly hypocritical of you if you did.

It is very difficult to argue for something when practically all the evidence doesn't support the claim or claims.

Something you would know far more about than I would.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_marg]

previously: It is only a fallacy when used to divert attention away from the real issues of a discussion.

Pahoran:

You mean--like you did?

Many people think that if one makes a personal criticism in debate that it is a fallacy. That is not the case. If the criticism has a bearing on the issues then it is justified. For example an individual's lack of qualification on an issue may very well be a legitimate point to bring up. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether Ray and Wade are qualified in assessing the psychological well being of others or talking about relationships and how best to conduct oneself in one.

previously: Since Wade and Ray are giving advice...it is important to the discussion what their qualifications are for giving advice.

Pahoran:

Not nearly as important as the merits of that advice.

I addressed the merits brought up. They (Wade & Ray) have not established that the majority of posts on RFM are filled with anger and/or unjustified criticisms of Mormonism.

Divorce is not only one of the most impoverishing experiences anyone is ever likely to have, it is also one of the most emotionally debilitating. I hope it never happens to you; more than just your smug assumptions of superiority would suffer.

Ray presented himself as a bit of a relationship expert. the way he presents himself anyone would think he'd been married successfully 22 years. So he's got quite a nerve to do so. I'll quote him " So it's always better to talk things out rather than bottling up. But how you talk things out is also very important in a relationship. I think I know a thing or two about this, having been married for 22 years and having five children. I could say a lot about this but it would involve disclosing private matters.”

From where I sit, your remark looks like a rather spiteful way to kick someone when he's down. Had I done that, it would no doubt merit another multi-paragraph entry on Scratch's obsessive hate blog. Since it was done by someone who hates as he does, of course, it will be passed over in silence.

I can appreciate your point. But I’m giving them a bit of a reality check. I’ve had lengthy discussions with both Ray and Wade and I know from experience they tend to reason poorly. I think they are reasoning poorly on this issue as well, though I expect you disagree with my assessment. In their own ways they can be quite nasty. I’ve seen them in action, and know they are not strangers to dishing out insults.

Previously: Mormon apologists from my observations of the FAIR board employ ad hominem as a way to shift focus off the issues and onto the critic.[/quote]

Pahoran:

Which is exactly what you did.

The issue has been drummed up. There is no issue of anger being out of control with posters on RFM..that is in Wade and Ray's imagination. The real issue is their (Wade & Ray) perception of the RFM board and why they perceive as they do. I’ve addressed this in a previous post.


Previously: And I don't blame them really.

Pahoran:

I'm glad to hear it; it would be highly hypocritical of you if you did.

We’ll leave that for readers to decide.

Previously: It is very difficult to argue for something when practically all the evidence doesn't support the claim or claims.

Pahoran:

Something you would know far more about than I would.

Again we can leave that for anyone reading to decide.

[_Ray A]

Ray presented himself as a bit of a relationship expert. the way he presents himself anyone would think he'd been married successfully 22 years. So he's got quite a nerve to do so. I'll quote him " So it's always better to talk things out rather than bottling up. But how you talk things out is also very important in a relationship. I think I know a thing or two about this, having been married for 22 years and having five children. I could say a lot about this but it would involve disclosing private matters.”

Question 1: Do you have children? (by the way, your comment that I "live alone" is wrong. My 17 year old daughter has lived with me for over a year, and previous to that for three years. )

Question 2: You present yourself, always, as a bit of a science expert. What are your qualifications in science?

Finally, you know nothing of my marriage, and nothing of my divorce circumstances, and it's quite insulting to write that I had a "failed marriage" when you don't know the circumstances, and your clear insinuation is that I am responsible for the failure. Yes, I do get nasty sometimes. With people like you who only offer ad hominem comments that have nothing to do with the subject. You are an insulting and offensive human being.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I find it interesting that the 2 guys, Ray and Wade who are expressing concern about the pyschological well being of posters on RFM and claim they are concerned that venting on the board is no good for posters there, are the last 2 one would want to emulate on how to live a successful life. Ray lives alone, in his 50's, so poor he can barely buy a book (last I heard) a failed marriage. He has problems controlling his temper. tWade I believe in his 50's, never married, no kids. Yet these 2 are giving advice on how to live well and deal with others..it's priceless.

Neither of them, in my opinion care about posters on RFM and their well being. Both these men, appear to be self absorbed and by all accounts by many people would be considered failures in life. I think what really is bother them is that criticisms of Mormonism which they identify with personally, hurts their egos.

And let us all remember: only Mormon apologists use the ad hominem fallacy.

Regards,
Pahoran

Among other logical fallacies, yes. It is built into the faith structure to do so. It is a given that FARMS will pull out AH to attack those who are interested in truth instead of a marginalized cult.

I Love being here and I am in recovery right now I have been going through recovery for a long time now and have not been able to repress the horrible abuse that happened to me as a child.

I am finally able and ready to deal with the abuse that occured in my life....in my childhood...

Emotional and physical abuse by the hands of my parents......You would never imagine the emontional abuse never

I cannot repress my my pain

I do not want anyone's pity or sorrow...I want empathy from others that is alll

[_marg]

Question 1: Do you have children? (by the way, your comment that I "live alone" is wrong. My 17 year old daughter has lived with me for over a year, and previous to that for three years. )

Yes I have 2 children.

You present yourself, always, as a bit of a science expert. What are your qualifications in science?

No I've not ever presented myself as a science expert. I talk about the scientific process.

Finally, you know nothing of my marriage, and nothing of my divorce circumstances, and it's quite insulting to write that I had a "failed marriage" when you don't know the circumstances, and your clear insinuation is that I am responsible for the failure. Yes, I do get nasty sometimes. With people like you who only offer ad hominem comments that have nothing to do with the subject. You are an insulting and offensive human being.

Ray..you sound kind of angry. Perhaps Wade can help you out.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Marg

Damn I thought you were a scientist just like I thought Jaoson was Lawyer


Boy I am so disappointed................

What will I ever do now

[_Ray A]

No I've not ever presented myself as a science expert. I talk about the scientific process.

This is what people call - hypocrisy.

Ray..you sound kind of angry. Perhaps Wade can help you out.

And was that your purpose? To divert the thread, as you always do, and which you always did on FAIR? To taunt, to tease, to ridicule with mindless point-scoring by attacking people, and not discussing the subject? Exactly what ex-Mormons do to people like DCP, instead of addressing his points? How come whenever you come into a conversation it always goes downhill? Do you think it might be because of your small mind and mentality?

As far as I'm concerned Pahoran has more humanity than many here.

[_Pahoran]

previously: It is only a fallacy when used to divert attention away from the real issues of a discussion.

Pahoran:

You mean--like you did?

Many people think that if one makes a personal criticism in debate that it is a fallacy. That is not the case. If the criticism has a bearing on the issues then it is justified. For example an individual's lack of qualification on an issue may very well be a legitimate point to bring up. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether Ray and Wade are qualified in assessing the psychological well being of others or talking about relationships and how best to conduct oneself in one.

But at what point did that become "the issue?" Before or after you chose to make it "the issue" by diverting the discussion to them as people?

previously: Since Wade and Ray are giving advice...it is important to the discussion what their qualifications are for giving advice.

Pahoran:

Not nearly as important as the merits of that advice.

I addressed the merits brought up. They (Wade & Ray) have not established that the majority of posts on RFM are filled with anger and/or unjustified criticisms of Mormonism.

I think it would be mightily difficult to "establish" what "the majority" of anything is in that particular cesspit.

Divorce is not only one of the most impoverishing experiences anyone is ever likely to have, it is also one of the most emotionally debilitating. I hope it never happens to you; more than just your smug assumptions of superiority would suffer.

Ray presented himself as a bit of a relationship expert. the way he presents himself anyone would think he'd been married successfully 22 years. So he's got quite a nerve to do so. I'll quote him " So it's always better to talk things out rather than bottling up. But how you talk things out is also very important in a relatioship. I think I know a thing or two about this, having been married for 22 years and having five children. I could say a lot about this but it would involve disclosing private matters.”

So you very helpfully disclosed them for him. How very kind of you. If it was me doing it to you, or someone like you--or even if I did it to Ray, and he was to be on the other side of the fence--it would be screamed from the rooftops as evidence that I am "totally heartless and evil---rotten to the core, in fact."

And the accuser might actually have a point, at long last.

I do not read his statement as claiming to be in a 22-year successful marriage. He says nothing other than that he had been married for that long. If you leap to any conclusions about the success or otherwise of his marriage, that can hardly be his fault. He rather explicitly said that there were personal matters he didn't want to bring up.

From where I sit, your remark looks like a rather spiteful way to kick someone when he's down. Had I done that, it would no doubt merit another multi-paragraph entry on Scratch's obsessive hate blog. Since it was done by someone who hates as he does, of course, it will be passed over in silence.

I can appreciate your point. But I’m giving them a bit of a reality check. I’ve had lengthy discussions with both Ray and Wade and I know from experience they tend to reason poorly. I think they are reasoning poorly on this issue as well, though I expect you disagree with my assessment. In their own ways they can be quite nasty. I’ve seen them in action, and know they are not strangers to dishing out insults.

I have little interaction with Wade. I've had a number of discussions with Ray; I've felt the sharp edge of his keyboard, and he of mine, more than once. But I do not agree that he "reasons poorly."

But if perchance he does, I'm sure you should be able to demonstrate it without resorting to a personal attack.

Previously: Mormon apologists from my observations of the FAIR board employ ad hominem as a way to shift focus off the issues and onto the critic.

Pahoran:

Which is exactly what you did.

The issue has been drummed up. There is no issue of anger being out of control with posters on RFM..that is in Wade and Ray's imagination. The real issue is their (Wade & Ray) perception of the RFM board and why they perceive as they do. I’ve addressed this in a previous post.[/quote]
No issue? Er--okay.

Do you imagine the anger is under good control here? Have you read any posts by "Smart Bitch" or "Vegas Refugee" or "Nortinski" or "Polygamy Porter" or "Mister Scratch" recently? Do you expect to credibly deny that their posts simply reek of their rage?

Previously: And I don't blame them really.

Pahoran:

I'm glad to hear it; it would be highly hypocritical of you if you did.

We’ll leave that for readers to decide.

Previously: It is very difficult to argue for something when practically all the evidence doesn't support the claim or claims.

Pahoran:

Something you would know far more about than I would.

Again we can leave that for anyone reading to decide.

That's fine with me.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_marg]

Previously: Many people think that if one makes a personal criticism in debate that it is a fallacy. That is not the case. If the criticism has a bearing on the issues then it is justified. For example an individual's lack of qualification on an issue may very well be a legitimate point to bring up. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether Ray and Wade are qualified in assessing the psychological well being of others or talking about relationships and how best to conduct oneself in one.[/quote]

Pahoran

But at what point did that become "the issue?" Before or after you chose to make it "the issue" by diverting the discussion to them as people?

Pahoran, in this discussion I first brought up that the issue (anger on RFM) they brought up didn't exist to the extent it was a personal problem or excessive on the M.B. I then pointed out that they(Wade & Ray) are in no position to be counseling on anger, even if that was an issue.

previously: I addressed the merits brought up. They (Wade & Ray) have not established that the majority of posts on RFM are filled with anger and/or unjustified criticisms of Mormonism.

Pahoran:

I think it would be mightily difficult to "establish" what "the majority" of anything is in that particular cesspit.

Sure it is a matter of opinion. Just like your opinion "cesspit" But it is my experience from reading that board off and on over a 5 year period that the majority of posts are not particularly angry. I don't consider critical comments on Mormonism indicative of anger..

previously: Ray presented himself as a bit of a relationship expert. the way he presents himself anyone would think he'd been married successfully 22 years. So he's got quite a nerve to do so. I'll quote him " So it's always better to talk things out rather than bottling up. But how you talk things out is also very important in a relatioship. I think I know a thing or two about this, having been married for 22 years and having five children. I could say a lot about this but it would involve disclosing private matters.”

Pahoran:

So you very helpfully disclosed them for him. How very kind of you. If it was me doing it to you, or someone like you--or even if I did it to Ray, and he was to be on the other side of the fence--it would be screamed from the rooftops as evidence that I am "totally heartless and evil---rotten to the core, in fact."

Why? Do people pick on you? I disclosed what he's disclosed on Mormon discussions previously.

Pahoran:

And the accuser might actually have a point, at long last.

It's a cold cruel world on message boards.

Pahoran:

I do not read his statement as claiming to be in a 22-year successful marriage. He says nothing other than that he had been married for that long. If you leap to any conclusions about the success or otherwise of his marriage, that can hardly be his fault. He rather explicitly said that there were personal matters he didn't want to bring up.

I disagree.

Pahoran:

I have little interaction with Wade. I've had a number of discussions with Ray; I've felt the sharp edge of his keyboard, and he of mine, more than once. But I do not agree that he "reasons poorly."

But if perchance he does, I'm sure you should be able to demonstrate it without resorting to a personal attack.

Well Pahoran, if you go back and read the thread you’ll see Ray was the first to make a personal insult.


Pahoran

Do you imagine the anger is under good control here? Have you read any posts by "Smart Bitch" or "Vegas Refugee" or "Nortinski" or "Polygamy Porter" or "Mister Scratch" recently? Do you expect to credibly deny that their posts simply reek of their rage?

What was brought up Pahoran was the RFM board..those people you mentioned rarely post on RFM. I think P. P probably the most but he doesn’t often.

I do see anger by Smart Bitch, Vegas, & P.P. on this board, but much more than anger what I see is condempt, disrespect for Mormonism and anyone arguing for it. Mister Scratch I see as less disrespectful, not particularly angry but critical. People can have contempt for something and it be justified(or not) and it not be detrimental to one’s well being.

[_Ray A]

Why? Do people pick on you? I disclosed what he's disclosed on Mormon discussions previously.

You just don't get it, do you? I said I did not want to go into any details or discuss that here. Nor have I ever divulged any details of my marriage break up to anyone on MDB. What I said on MDB months ago was irrelevant to the current discussion, and it was not pertinent to go into that. Your bringing this up was purely an ad hominem to divert the thread and be nasty.

I have avoided any contact with you until you came with this insulting diversion. Yes, go back and read this thread and you will see that you threw that first insult. So here we go again, another thread diverted because of your petty personal digs. Let me repeat, I have avoided you because I know what you're like and your expertise in diverting threads, and when you were on Quantumwave's NDE thread I ignored you, purposely. I think you just like attention. You will do anything to grab attention in a thread.