Yet another FAIR/MADB thread

[_Some Schmo]

This is a subject for a whole other thread. LOL

I think that Bush has acted with the best intentions based on the information that he has had available. Do I agree with the war? No...but now that we're there, we have to make the best of a bad situation and support the troops, or we're going to have another Vietnam situation.

Really? I don't think he was acting with the best intentions at all. I think if you wanted to make a case for evil, he'd make a great case study with which to begin.

There are three possibilities one can identify to explain Bush: stupid, evil, or both... I vote both.

But you're right... it's another thread. ;)

[_wenglund]

No, that is not what I am saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then what is your definition of "reasonable and well behaved?" Will you find a mean person credible as long as he/she is reasonable and well behaved?

I am not sure why this seemingly trite point has generated such controversy, but let me see if I can calm at least some concerns or undo some of the confusion.

First of all, it may help to understand that, as previously intimated, "reasonable and well behaved" is only ONE of a number of criteria I use to gage a person's credibility. A persons faith-status, as a so-called "apostate" (Mercury's word, not mine), is NOT one of the criteria, contrary to what is suggested in Mercury's rhetorical question.

Rather than mentioning in my previous posts some of the other criteria (which would include things like expertice, which would make it possible for me to find a "mean" person with expertice credible whether they were reasonably and well behaved or not--if that is possible), I chose to mention "reasonable and well behaved" because of its pertinence to what I had stated in the OP.

However, there are several ways in which I believe that "reasonable and well behaved" may be used as a gage for credibility. I won't take the time now to spell them all out, but it should suffice in pointing out what I see as the most obvious one. I view reasonable, fair, and balanced thinking as more credible than its opposite. It is much easier for me to believe and accept someone, particularly on matters of opinion, who is rational and respectful and proportional in their stated perspective than someone who is shrill and hatefilled and who lack a sense of proportion (think of the contrast between President Bush's steady, assuring, and comforting comments made atop the rubble of 9/11 versus the hysterics of Cindy Sheehan on the evening news, or the commonsense advice of Dr. Laura as opposed to the flippant comments of Rosie O'Donnell). And since reasonable behavior may be a gage of reasonable, fair, and balanced thinking, then reasonable and well behavior may, in this sense, be a gage of credibility.

As preiously indicated, on this basis I have found a number of non-believers and former members to be quite credible (I named but a few in the aforementioned threads), while there are others that I think lack credibility in this regard (out of respect I won't mention any names).

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

Here is the link to Wade's thread:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s=9320f9f098e4450ef6d98aa366d73318&showtopic=24437