Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

[_Bhodi]

Tappety tappety tap.

Was the law described in the article on the books or not? Why is that question too complex for you to answer?

Answer: it isn't. You're just obfuscating.

Oh, and in the list of tactics, I left out the part about derailing the discussion by trying to make the discussion about the individual rather than the subject at hand.

Let's say the law existed on the books. What difference would that have made?

[_Res Ipsa]

Let's say the law existed on the books. What difference would that have made?

I'll continue my argument once you answer the question. Was the law on the books? Is the problem that you don't know?

[_Bhodi]

Let's say the law existed on the books. What difference would that have made?

I'll continue my argument once you answer the question. Was the law on the books? Is the problem that you don't know?

No, the problem is that it does not really matter. You can continue to mock and denigrate me, but I really don't care, if you want to save some time. If you think the issue is relevant, then I can say you do not know enough of the subject matter. If you think you do, I would be interested in why, what you were studying, but if you just want to insult me, you can continue if you like, or stop if you want. I'm not that concerned, but I think animosity like that is self-destructive, and I think you should stop. Nevertheless, it is up to you.

[_Res Ipsa]

See, that's playing the man and not the ball. It's not that there is something wrong with your point, it's that whoever contradicts you is angry, or self-destructive, or silly, or uninformed. Again, right out of the playbook.

So, do you know the answer or not?

[_Bhodi]

See, that's playing the man and not the ball. It's not that there is something wrong with your point, it's that whoever contradicts you is angry, or self-destructive, or silly, or uninformed. Again, right out of the playbook.

So, do you know the answer or not?

That's because you live in that world where people try to attack others. It is the give and take you expect, and honestly many likely enjoy. I'm not invested in that. React as you like.

[_ludwigm]

See, that's playing the man and not the ball. It's not that there is something wrong with your point, it's that whoever contradicts you is angry, or self-destructive, or silly, or uninformed. Again, right out of the playbook.

So, do you know the answer or not?

That's because you live in that world where people try to attack others. It is the give and take you expect, and honestly many likely enjoy. I'm not invested in that. React as you like.

In the first comment of this thread Bazooka cited a Guardian's article.

In the seventh comment of this thread I cited a New York Times' one.

In the ninth comment of this thread you wrote "Your article makes no sense, why post it?"

[_Res Ipsa]

Look, I understand you'd rather turn the conversation to me, rather than the topic of the thread.

As you apparently have some aversion to answering simple questions, I'll sum up my argument now. You responded to Ludwig's comment in a rude and dismissive manner on the basis that he lacked sufficient information about Libya to even comment on a newspaper article. You dismissed the entire article as "silly." Yet, you have never actually attempted to make the case that Ludwig's comment was wrong -- that repeal of the law would not, in fact, represent a step toward religion. Your argument was 100% fallacious -- that Ludwig may not be an expert on all things Libyan is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Ludwig's observation was valid.

When I attempted to rebut your criticism of Ludwig by asking specific questions about statements made in the "silly" article, you responded to the first simple yes or no question by throwing out several red herrings and claiming the question could not be answered. The question was: Was X law on the books? When pressed, you not only refused to answer this simple question, you wouldn't even say whether you knew the answer. When I pressed you, you went into full persecution mode, trying to distract from the weakness of your substantive position by derailing the conversation.

Ludwig's comment was justified.

[_Bhodi]

Look, I understand you'd rather turn the conversation to me, rather than the topic of the thread.

Actually I am not that concerned with you personally. I hold no animosity to anyone here, it's not my way. I do not have a problem pointing out the actions you take, however. You are trying to defend a member of the group, a tribal dynamic, and what that person did really does not matter. Your actions are extremely hypocritical, you would condemn a Mormon for doing the same, but when it is a member of the group, you defend them.

This is largely the point of this board, insulting and criticizing Mormons, but the truth is the arguments are generally poor, mostly because they are motivated by anger and not intellectual reason. This is both damaging to the arguments, and damaging to the individual.

As you apparently have some aversion to answering simple questions, I'll sum up my argument now. You responded to Ludwig's comment in a rude and dismissive manner on the basis that he lacked sufficient information about Libya to even comment on a newspaper article. You dismissed the entire article as "silly." Yet, you have never actually attempted to make the case that Ludwig's comment was wrong -- that repeal of the law would not, in fact, represent a step toward religion. Your argument was 100% fallacious -- that Ludwig may not be an expert on all things Libyan is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Ludwig's observation was valid.

When I attempted to rebut your criticism of Ludwig by asking specific questions about statements made in the "silly" article, you responded to the first simple yes or no question by throwing out several red herrings and claiming the question could not be answered. The question was: Was X law on the books? When pressed, you not only refused to answer this simple question, you wouldn't even say whether you knew the answer. When I pressed you, you went into full persecution mode, trying to distract from the weakness of your substantive position by derailing the conversation.

Ludwig's comment was justified.

No, neither you nor Ludwigm are correct, and this is based on a considerable study of the subject, but that is not a problem. Without study, you would never have a chance to really understand the issues. The problem is that you don't study. Ludwigm read enough to think he could insult religious people. That intellectual handicap you both have is based on anger towards the subject matter and a desire to insult and not study. You can ignore this, or consider it.

[_Res Ipsa]

This is the second thread that you've arrogantly derailed. (Or maybe the first of two) I'd be happy to discuss all of your criticisms of me in a thread in Telestial or Terretial where they belong. In fact, I'll start one myself.

[_Bhodi]

This is the second thread that you've arrogantly derailed. (Or maybe the first of two) I'd be happy to discuss all of your criticisms of me in a thread in Telestial or Terretial where they belong. In fact, I'll start one myself.

I'm not arrogant, truth told I have very little ego, and it certainly would not be based on opinions here, but since I challenge your position that is a natural accusation to avoid interaction. I also am not angry. I am not criticizing you, either. If you would like to start self-flagellating, I would not necessarily approve of that either, so I would not recommend it. My observations are there, you are free to take them or leave them, but I would recommend you consider them. There is a tremendous amount of defensiveness, and what appears to be an inferiority complex associated with the ex-Mormon movement.

After a lot of observation, I think there is a lot of psychological trauma inflicted by the ex-Mormons of the ex-Mormons, because of this. It is an odd phenomenon, but one that is almost undeniable. We had someone convert from Catholicism last year. They did not obsess with Catholicism, talk about it on message boards, engage in anti-Catholic apologetics, or any other such activity. I have known people to leave Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, but there is something odd in the ex-Mormon movement where a significant population, not all but far too many, who obsess over Mormonism in a way that other religions largely do not. There are some random ex-Christian/Islam/other groups, but they do not seem to be as self-identifying as ex-Mormonism. Ex-Mormons are almost fanatically obsessed with the identification and mockery of all things Mormon. I think the defense of this phenomenon to be the root of your defense here, despite the hypocrisy. You would never tolerate the type of shoddy research and posting many of the ex-Mormons here contribute were it to come from a Mormon, but if it is from Ludwigm or Dr. W. or Bazooka, it is accepted without question. This is an oddity I think you should consider. I doubt you will, but who knows.