Question for Dr. Peterson and any other Apologist from MAD

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Interesting how perspectives are so subjective. Having followed both boards for the past year, I don't think there is any comparison between the two when it comes to anger, rage, and paranoia.


Well, that comment pretty much exemplifies how subjective perspectives can be.

Those three elements are frequently seen here, and seen but seldom on the MAD board.


Paranoia?

The MAD operator said she wishes she could control the entire internet. Who is paranoid here? I see nothing remotely comparable to this statement. The only person, who pitched a fit about anyone using his real name, is Pahoran, who as we all know, is a long time favorite at MAD.

Anger and rage?

I don’t see any of that here, but I understand that the Mormon attitude is conditioned to interpret all forms of apostasy and criticism as a fruit of anger and rage. This makes it easier to dismiss. Anger has certainly been demonstrated here by MAD posters, such as David Bokovoy. All I did was provide an email from Ritner and he went ballistic, accusing me of foul play. When I proved I had not lied, he left for good and then started a thread at MAD attacking me. He insists that apologists who leave the tribe, do so for the attention. Yea, I’m basking in so much attention! Go figure.

But this forum is divided up into three, so there really is no excuse for anyone complaining about vile comments. That kind of thing is not allowed in the celestial forum. The Celestial forum seems to be everything that’s good about MAD, with a plus: the moderators stay out of the discussions.

The reason why heavy hitter critics prefer to post at MAD has nothing to do with preference of the pleasant atmosphere. It probably has more to do with the fact that MAD advertises to a broader audience, and there are more TBMs to debate with. Also, they do not have to worry about people like Dan Peterson, Pahoran, or David Bokovoy fleeing the scene, as is so often the case on this forum. They make an appearance just to tease us with the idea that a real discussion will ensue. And when things don’t go their way they run back to MAD, and then they end up recanting their recent experiences from the dreaded “dark side.”

The MAD board welcomes critics like Chris Smith and The Dude and Dan Vogel who don't get all riled up and frothy-mouthed like the "now-banned" tended to get.


MAD has never “welcomed” critics. It tolerates some, and doesn’t tolerate others. People like Vogel, Uncle Dale and CK make a mess of things and they don’t like it - their silence shouldn't be interpreted as approval - but they really have no just cause to do anything about it because these guys bend over backwards to make their points while constantly trying to be as nice about it as possible. I was banned and I don’t think anyone in their right mind would have considered me “frothy-mouthed.” Over the past year I have seen Madites recreate the history and make up different reasons why I was banned. First it was because I called Hauglid a "liar"(which I didn't) then it was because I had used sock-puppets (which at that time, I never did) and then it was because I "broke" a promise.

I have never had to worry about this kind of disingenuous nonsense from any other forum.

I can understand why the majority of the TBM-type MAD posters would never post here. They can't understand or deal with the depth of hostility that manifests itself frequently on this board.


Again, why don’t they try the Celestial forum?

Plus, it is not a place (for the most part) where one can engage in any truly serious discussions about substantive matters. Why? Because it always quickly devolves into a rabid-dog-pile on anyone attempting to argue in favor of a conventional believer's point of view.


Again, why don’t you go to the Celestial forum? You’re characterization seems to be narrowed to the telestial forum. There have been many decent discussions on both the terrestrial and celestial forums. I wold say discussions that could have never taken place at MAD because the mods would have stepped in the minute David Bokovoy or Peterson got flustered.

I will gladly engage The Dude or Dan Vogel or Chris Smith or Don Bradley in a discussion about something of substance. But when we do engage in substantive discussions, we always do it on the MAD board instead of here -- presumably because they also sense that it's a better environment for that kind of discussion.


Methinks you’re speaking for too many people without asking. Again, what possible rationale could there be for not holding a debate here in the Celestial forum, if not for the lack of audience?

I won't engage in discussions of substance with people who seriously think that believing LDS are brain-damaged Morgbots, or something of the sort.


Oh come now. Mormons consider all critics spiritually defective, so there is no room for playing victim to prejudice here. They go in with that presupposition from the get-go, so let's don't pretend they don't. Dan Peterson has even indicated publicly that this is a reason why he will not engage me on Islamic issues (even though he has done so on many occasions since making this comment).

Having said all this, there is no realistic expectation for any critical forum to match FAIR as far as popularity and dedication go. MAD is defending an organization of millions, and is constantly being advertised at Church events across the globe – it is also well funded. Whereas, Dr. Shades is hosting a forum that consists primarily of his dedicated followers from over the years, and sometimes we all wonder if the board will be shut down again due to failure of payment.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Question for Dr. Peterson and any other Apologist from M

Post by _harmony »

liz3564 wrote:Would you, Dr. Peterson, and several of you here, such as BC, Asbestosman, and any others who have some influence on MAD address this issue?

Looking at the last few threads, I think the venom has really gotten out of hand.

And I'm not claiming complete innocence here, either. When I get my feelings hurt, I strike out, too.

Maybe we really should all just take a step back for a moment.

Many of us are parents, but we're acting like children.

Would it kill us to be a little more polite with each other?

Seriously....I know that if someone disagreed with me, if they started out their post by saying, "I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree and this is why..." I would be less likely to feel like I was being attacked personally.

I was told when I posted on FAIR/MAD that I was just too thin-skinned to be posting on boards like this. This message came from fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints....people I have been taught all my life to trust.

Even amidst all of the strife that has happened here, I have felt more welcomed and more accepted on this board than on an apologetic board that is suppose to be "church member friendly".

I find that both ironic and sad.


I'm a little confused. Are you talking about MDB or MAD, when you say "Looking at the last few threads, I think the venom has really gotten out of hand."? What last few threads are you talking about?

I haven't been on MAD in a year or so, since they banned Dill Pickles and blocked my IP. But if you're referring to here, I observe nothing out of the ordinary.

Anyone who wants serious discussion can find it here or there. The problem is, anyone who wants serious discussion here or on the Celestial forum has to understand that there is no protection from the mods, and that alone requires a herculean effort that most LDS apologists are unable and unwilling to make. I'm not saying they're universally unprepared, poor debaters, thin-skinned, or cowards, but enough of them fit that description for me to shake my head in dismay at the state of LDS apologetics today.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

asbestosman wrote:
liz3564 wrote:Deleted


I think it was a misunderstanding on Pahoran's part. I seem to recall this coming up last year with Pahoran. As I recall, Runtu didn't think Pahoran mean to be so malicious there and forgave him. Again, I really doubt that Pahoran would knowingly encourage suicide. What's more likely is that Pahoran simply didn't understand the suicidal feelings of Runtu but assumed it was merely great feelings of sadness--something Pahoran would likely attribute to fighting against the church.

If Runtu forgave this, I think it a bad idea to keep bringing it up.


I apologize. It was wrong of me to bring this up. I was in a pissy mood when I wrote that and since I like Runtu, I have held a grudge against Pahoran regarding the issue. If Runtu has forgiven him, then it's done.

I have deleted that portion of my post.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

asbestosman wrote:
I think it was a misunderstanding on Pahoran's part. I seem to recall this coming up last year with Pahoran. As I recall, Runtu didn't think Pahoran mean to be so malicious there and forgave him. Again, I really doubt that Pahoran would knowingly encourage suicide. What's more likely is that Pahoran simply didn't understand the suicidal feelings of Runtu but assumed it was merely great feelings of sadness--something Pahoran would likely attribute to fighting against the church.

If Runtu forgave this, I think it a bad idea to keep bringing it up.


I've long since forgiven him, and it was wrong of me to even mention it in passing. I've said many times that I don't understand or appreciate the anger and malice of people like Pahoran, but I'll take him at his word that he did not intend to worsen an already bad situation.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Post by _Some Schmo »

I think it's pretty funny (and telling) that the people who say they won't have a substantive conversation here are the same ones who basically can't. At least, I have never witnessed them doing so in my days over at MAD.

I often wonder what they think "substantive" means. I think they equate it with "a conversation that is always respectful of the church."

I think it's hilarious that the same people that get all bothered about Pahoran will still welcome Potty-mouth Porter and Jercury with open arms. To each his own, I suppose.


I think it's hilarious that you arrogantly post in a way that demonstrates you think you're above certain people around here while simultaneously calling them juvenile names. To each his own, I suppose.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Some Schmo wrote:I think it's pretty funny (and telling) that the people who say they won't have a substantive conversation here are the same ones who basically can't. At least, I have never witnessed them doing so in my days over at MAD.

I often wonder what they think "substantive" means. I think they equate it with "a conversation that is always respectful of the church."

I think it's hilarious that the same people that get all bothered about Pahoran will still welcome Potty-mouth Porter and Jercury with open arms. To each his own, I suppose.


I think it's hilarious that you arrogantly post in a way that demonstrates you think you're above certain people around here while simultaneously calling them juvenile names. To each his own, I suppose.


I've said before I don't like the profanity or the juvenile insults, but to compare that with the visceral hatred of Pahoran and suggest that Pahoran comes off more favorably boggles the mind.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Post by _Some Schmo »

Runtu wrote: I've said before I don't like the profanity or the juvenile insults, but to compare that with the visceral hatred of Pahoran and suggest that Pahoran comes off more favorably boggles the mind.


I understand your sentiment here, but is it really any more mind-boggling than believing that some 14 year old walked into the forest and saw god?

Were talking about fragile, weak belief systems here that must be protected at all costs, no matter what psychological collateral damage it does (like thinking Pahoran is anything but a maniacal lunatic).
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Some Schmo wrote:
Runtu wrote: I've said before I don't like the profanity or the juvenile insults, but to compare that with the visceral hatred of Pahoran and suggest that Pahoran comes off more favorably boggles the mind.


I understand your sentiment here, but is it really any more mind-boggling than believing that some 14 year old walked into the forest and saw god?

Were talking about fragile, weak belief systems here that must be protected at all costs, no matter what psychological collateral damage it does (like thinking Pahoran is anything but a maniacal lunatic).


For the record, I do not believe Pahoran is a maniacal lunatic. For whatever reason, he feels justified in aiming hatred and vitriol at anyone who questions church orthodoxy. I will never understand that, but I don't think he's nuts.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Post by _Some Schmo »

Runtu wrote: For the record, I do not believe Pahoran is a maniacal lunatic. For whatever reason, he feels justified in aiming hatred and vitriol at anyone who questions church orthodoxy. I will never understand that, but I don't think he's nuts.


I thought about stating this at the time that I wrote it but just thought I'd let what I said stand on its own unless someone brought it up: Pahoran (that is, the forum image created by the sum of those posts) is a maniacal lunatic. I have no idea what the guy writing those posts is really like, just like any other poster on these message boards. For all I know, it's just a show. Perhaps DCP is a really a kind, intelligent person as well. You just wouldn't know it from the posts.

That's all I'm saying.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Some Schmo wrote:I thought about stating this at the time that I wrote it but just thought I'd let what I said stand on its own unless someone brought it up: Pahoran (that is, the forum image created by the sum of those posts) is a maniacal lunatic. I have no idea what the guy writing those posts is really like, just like any other poster on these message boards. For all I know, it's just a show. Perhaps DCP is a really a kind, intelligent person as well. You just wouldn't know it from the posts.

That's all I'm saying.


OK, I'll agree that his online persona is a maniacal lunatic. :-)

I don't know what Pahoran is like in his everyday life. Dr. Peterson tells us he's a nice fellow. Perhaps he is. You wouldn't know it from his posts, though.
Last edited by cacheman on Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply